46
K AR L BA RTH ’S INFRALAPSARIAN THEOLOGY ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT 1920–1953 SHAO K AI T SEN G NEW EXPLORA TIONS IN THEOLOGY

Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 145

K A R L B A R T H rsquo S

I N F R A L A P S A R I A NT H E O L O G Y

ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT

1920ndash1953

S H A O K A I T S E N G

N E W E X P L O R A T I O N S

I N T H E O L O G Y

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 245

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 345

K A R L B A R T H rsquo S

I N F R A L A P S A R I A N

T H E O L O G Y

ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT

1920ndash1953

S H A O K A I T S E N G

FOREWORD BY GEORGE HUNSINGER

N E W E X P L O R A T I O N S

I N T H E O L O G Y

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 445

InterVarsity Press

PO Box 1048625104862810486241048624 Downers Grove IL 98309410486248520211048625852021-104862510486281048626983094

ivpresscom

emailivpresscom

copy104862610486241048625983094 by Shao Kai seng

All rights reserved No part o this book may be reproduced in any orm without written permission rom

InterVarsity Press

InterVarsity Pressreg is the book-publishing division o InterVarsity Christian FellowshipUSAreg a movement o

students and aculty active on campus at hundreds o universities colleges and schools o nursing in the UnitedStates o America and a member movement o the International Fellowship o Evangelical Students For

inormation about local and regional activities visit intervarsityorg

Cover design Cindy Kiple

Interior design Beth McGill

ISBN 10486331048631983096-1048624-98309610486271048624983096-852021104862510486271048626-1048628 (print)

ISBN 10486331048631983096-1048624-98309610486271048624983096-104863310486339830961048626-1048625 (digital)

Printed in the United States o America

As a member o the Green Press Initiative InterVarsity Press is committed to protectingthe environment and to the responsible use o natural resources o learn more visit

greenpressinitiativeorg

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record or this book is available rom the Library o Congress

P 10486261048627 10486261048626 10486261048625 10486261048624 10486251048633 1048625983096 10486251048631 1048625983094 1048625852021 10486251048628 10486251048627 10486251048626 10486251048625 10486251048624 1048633 983096 1048631 983094 852021 1048628 1048627 1048626 1048625

Y 1048627852021 10486271048628 10486271048627 10486271048626 10486271048625 10486271048624 10486261048633 1048626983096 10486261048631 1048626983094 1048626852021 10486261048628 10486261048627 10486261048626 10486261048625 10486261048624 10486251048633 1048625983096 10486251048631 1048625983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 545

ContentsForeword by George Hunsinger 983097

Acknowledgments 1048625983093

Abbreviations 1048625983097

Introduction 9830901048625

Part 983089 Reappraising Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position1048625 Supra- and Infralapsarianism in the Seventeenth

Century Some Definitions 10486281048625

983090 Church Dogmatics sect983091983091 Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position Reassessed 1048630983090

Part 983090 Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position in Development 9830891048633983090983088ndash98308910486339830931048627

983091 Roumlmerbrie II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Lapsarianism in the

ldquoImpossible Possibilityrdquo Dialectic 983096983091

1048628 he Goumlttingen-Muumlnster Period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Christology

and Predestination in the Subject-Object Dialectic 10486251048625983090

983093 he Bonn Years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) Human alk and Divine Wordmdash

New Developments 10486251048628983096

1048630 Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) Infralapsarian Aspects of Barthrsquos

Christocentric Doctrine of Election 1048625983095983095

983095 CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) Christ as Electing God and Elected

HumanmdashLapsarianism ldquoPurifiedrdquo 9830901048625983091

983096 CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Adamic History and History of Christmdash

Infralapsarian endencies in Barthrsquos Doctrine of Sin 9830901048628983090

Conclusion 9830909830971048624

Bibliography 98309110486241048625

Author Index 98309110486251048628

Subject Index 9830911048625983093

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 645

Introduction

S983157983138983146983141983139983156 M983137983156983156983141983154 T983144983141 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Tis book is a study on the twentieth-century Swiss theologian Karl Barthrsquos

christological and predestinarian treatments of the problem of human sin

and fallenness through the successive stages of his career from Romans II

(98308910486331048626983088) to CD IV983089 (983089104863310486291048627) Is the divine word of election and along with it

Godrsquos rejection of sinmdashBarth maintained throughout his theological career

that predestination must be understood as double predestination (ie as

election and reprobation)mdashaddressed to its object as fallen or unfallen In

historic Reformed theology this has been known as the ldquolapsarianrdquo (from

the Latin word lapsus meaning ldquothe fallrdquo) problem Supralapsarianism

(supra-lapsum above or before the fall) contends that in Godrsquos eternal deci-

sions God has in mind unfallen human beings as the object of election and

reprobation infralapsarianism (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) argues

that when God eternally issued the double decision of election and repro-

bation the human object was considered as fallen

In our postmetaphysical age these anglicized Latin scholastic terms may

seem obsolete and irrelevant Particularly in the field of Barth studies in which

terms like ldquometaphysicsrdquo and ldquonatural theologyrdquo are oen used pejoratively the

whole lapsarian debate may seem all the more repulsively speculative

However to simplistically label Barth as altogether antimetaphysical is to

misconstrue his intentions Barth rejects metaphysics as a method but theontological questions that metaphysics as a subdiscipline of philosophy

seeks to answer such as those of God of being and beings of becoming of

nature of origins and so on remain central to his theology As George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 745

10486261048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Pattison reminds us ldquoBarthian treatments of the relationship between act

and being and the nature of revelatory communicationrdquo serve to challenge

ldquorecent theologies that use the tropes of post-metaphysical philosophy toposition claims for the independence of theological enquiryrdquo983089 Te com-

plexity of Barthrsquos antimetaphysical approach to metaphysical questions

should caution against any simplistic dismissal of historic theological in-

quiries that do not seem at first glance to be of interest in our postmeta-

physical zeitgeist

Barth is known for surprising his readers at times by taking up theo-

logical problems that others have deemed speculative and unanswerable Infact to dismiss the lapsarian problem as ldquometaphysicalrdquo is to miss a crucial

part of Barthrsquos theology namely his insistence on seeking understanding of

the reality of sin in light of Godrsquos gracious election For him the history of

fallen humankind and what he calls nothingness indeed constitute an absurd

irrational and unexplainable reality but he insists that faith must seek to

understand this reality and take it seriously not for its own sake but for the

sake of understanding what Christ has done for us and in our stead Onlyby explicating this inexplicable reality in light of Godrsquos gracious election and

reprobation in Christ is it possible for the believer to truly understand (and

thus not understand) this reality and take it seriously (and thus laughingly)

Even though Barth takes issue with certain theological methods that clas-

sical supra- and infralapsarians have employed to answer the lapsarian

problem from Romans II (98308910486331048626983088) he deemed this inquiry worthy of pursuit

Barth even insists on retaining the supra-infra- nomenclature because

the logical orders that the terms imply are important for ruling out the pos-

sibility of natural theology in his reconstruction of the doctrine of election

he wants to make sure that no eternal act of God and no historical event is

understood detachedly from the highest word that God has uttered to hu-

mankind the word of Godrsquos gracious election

Yet if election is not understood christologically thenmdashas Barth would

consistently argue from 98308910486331048627983094 onwardmdashthe very doctrine of election would

itself become speculatively natural-theological in which case the theological

notion of sin would easily slip into an anthropological category and become

1George Pattison God and Being An Enquiry (Oxford Oxford University Press 98309098308810486251048625) 1048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 845

Introduction 10486261048627

some sort of a second god While his christological reorientation of the

doctrine of election only began in 98308910486331048627983094 from Romans II on he always made

sure to treat the problem of sin christologicallyFor this reason Barthrsquos doctrine of election is deeply related to christo-

logical lapsarianism As a note of explanation supralapsarian Christology

holds that God would have become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos sin

christological supralapsarians claim to possess knowledge of divine pur-

poses to become incarnate other than the purpose to reverse the human

plight of fallenness By contrast infralapsarian Christology without neces-

sarily denying that God could have become incarnate even if humankindhad not fallen into sin declines to claim knowledge of any divine purpose

for which God would have done so Infralapsarian Christology offers only

one answer to Anselmrsquos great question cur Deus homo (why God became

human) God decided to become incarnate for our salvation

More detailed definitions of predestinarian and christological supra- and

infralapsarianism will be provided anon Suffice it now to note that although

Barth does not apply lapsarian terminology to his Christology he engagesdeeply with christological lapsarianism One aim of this book is to paint a

picture of how Barth weaves together his Christology and doctrine of

election as a result of his reflections on the lapsarian problem demon-

strating how supra- and infralapsarian patterns of thinking are dialectically

interwoven in the development of his christological doctrine of election

N983137983154983154983137983156983145983151

When I was a student at Regent College Vancouver I participated in a

seminar on the atonement led by the prominent scholar of Puritan theology

the beloved J I Packer One session was dedicated to Karl Barth During

that session I suggested that in CD II1048626 election presupposes the fall o my

assertion Professor Packer responded ldquoIf you are right about Barth then he

would have to be an infralapsarian Irsquom quite intrigued because obviously

he calls himself a supralapsarianrdquo

Professor Packerrsquos comment piqued my interest in Barthrsquos lapsarian po-

sition and aer Regent I continued on to Princeton Teological Seminary

where I wrote a master of theology thesis on this subject under the super-

vision of one of the most respected Barth scholars of our day George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 945

1048626983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Hunsinger In my thesis I quoted Loraine Boettnerrsquos famous formulation of

the lapsarian question ldquoWhen the decrees of election and reprobation came

into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallenrdquo1048626

In the margin next to this quote on the printed copy of my submitted

thesis the master who taught me how to read Barth wrote ldquoBarth would say

lsquofallenrsquordquo However Professor Hunsinger issued the caveat that Barthrsquos mature

theology dialectically incorporates both supra- and infralapsarian patterns

of thinking while rejecting what he sees as their errors Tis key insight

eventually became the foundation and a central thesis of this monograph

While agreeing with my take on Barthrsquos view of the object of election atthat time Professor Hunsinger still preferred to think of Barth as basically

supralapsarian He wrote the following definition of supralapsarianism on

my submitted thesis ldquoStrictly supralapsarians are those who hold that in

pretemporal election God chose to elect some and reject others in order to

glorify himself and so created the world to carry out this planrdquo

I came to realize then that in the circle of Barth studies supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are defined quite differently than in the circle of Puritan andReformation studies o be sure definitions vary somewhat within Puritan

and Reformation studies themselves but there is at least a minimalist defi-

nition to which they would agree

o further demonstrate the case during my doctoral research I had a con-

versation with my friend Mark Jones who is a prolific young scholar in Pu-

ritan studies I told him that the majority of mainstream Barth scholars be-

lieve that Barth sees the object of election as fallen ldquoTatrsquos interestingmdashand

they still call Barth a supralapsarianrdquo responded Jones in his characteristi-

cally calm and unwavering voice raising his eyebrows as if putting a question

mark at the end of the sentence In fact whenever I tell friends from evan-

gelical Reformed circles that Barth sees the object of election as fallen their

responses are almost always something like ldquoTen why does Barth call

himself a supralapsarianrdquo or ldquoDoesnrsquot that make Barth an infralapsarianrdquo

When I raise these questions among friends from Barthian circles they

usually respond ldquoNo Barth is a supralapsarian because unlike the infralap-

sarians he doesnrsquot think of election as lsquoa reaction to previous events in the

2Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 1048625983090983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1045

Introduction 10486261048629

history of Godrsquos relations with usrsquordquo1048627 Tey might say with Barth Unlike the

infralapsarian the supralapsarian does not think of ldquoGodrsquos overruling of evil

as a later and additional struggle in which God is dealing with a new andto some extent disruptive eature in His original planrdquo1048628

Yet a Reformed evangelical might reply by quoting Herman Bavinck ldquoSo

lsquowas the fall actually a rustration o Godrsquos plan But no Reformed believers

even i they are inralapsarians can or may ever say such a thingrsquordquo983093 She might

add ldquoFor supra- and infralapsarians alike lsquoGodrsquos decision to be for us in

Jesus is not a reaction to previous events in the history of Godrsquos relations

with us but has a reality in its own right preceding the whole of that historyrsquordquo1048630

When I took up this understanding years ago and argued that Barth is in

fact basically infralapsarian by virtue of believing that the object of election

is fallen a then doctoral candidate at Princeton Seminarymdashwho agreed with

me that for Barth election presupposes humanityrsquos fallennessmdashresponded

to me in a short email comprising just one German word ldquoNein rdquo Evidently

Barth and Barthians define supra- and infralapsarianism quite differently

from most Reformed evangelicals especially specialists in Puritan and Ref-ormation studies

But why should this matter Shall those who say ldquochipsrdquo say unto the

others ldquoTou shalt not say lsquofriesrsquordquo Certainly notmdashas far as deep-fried po-

tatoes are concerned However the discrepancy between the two groups of

scholars at large with regard to the definitions of supra- and infralapsari-

anism is in fact of a different nature

For one thing it shows that evangelical critics of Barth who are familiar

with the Lapsarian Controversy have not understood his doctrine of election

which many consider to be the heart of his theology accurately enough to

recognize that he is not entirely a supralapsarian according to the way they

would define the word Conversely Barth and Barthians have not sufficiently

probed into Reformed-orthodox formulations of the doctrine of predesti-

nation to disagree with them with complete accuracy

3See Kathryn anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo in Te Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth ed

John Webster (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 983090983088983088983088) 104862510486259830924KD II983090 1048625983091983095 E 1048625983090983096-983090983097 (emphasis added)5Herman Bavinck Reormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend

(Grand Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 98309198309610486296Contra anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo 10486251048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1145

1048626983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Sorting out the terminology is unlikely to bring Barthians and evangel-

icals to a complete doctrinal agreement but I believe it would at least be

helpful for ongoing dialogues between these two diverse groups of scholarswho while having different loci of theological norms share many over-

lapping theological concerns and convictions

More importantly when Barth identifies himself as a supralapsarian he

does so in the context of the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth

century Understanding seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism would thus help us to place Barth in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition with which he was deeply yetcritically engaged As John Webster one leading Barth scholar of our day

puts it Barthrsquos engagement with historic Reformed theology was ldquodeeply

formative of the direction of his theological thinkingrdquo1048631

Webster laments that ldquoone of the graver weaknesses of some contem-

porary Christian theology is catechetical it has simply not learned the tradi-

tions of Christianity deeply enough and lovingly enough to be able to move

around within them restate them or even disagree with them with muchaccuracyrdquo1048632 Heeding Websterrsquos call to scholarly reappraisal of Barthrsquos theo-

logical development in light of his critical reappropriation of historic Re-

formed theology I will show that sorting out Barthrsquos lapsarian position in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition is a worthwhile and fruitful

endeavor in many ways it not only helps us gain more insight into Barthrsquos

theological development but can also lead to deeper and more accurate ap-

preciation of the tradition so formative to his theological thinking

T983144983141 T983144983141983151983140983145983139983161 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Te sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed that theodicy which

ldquorepresents the attempt to make a pact with deathrdquo is ldquocentral for any reli-

gious effort at world-maintenance and indeed also for any effort at the latter

on the basis of a non-religious Weltanschauung rdquo1048633 Tis is because theodicy

seeks to explain universal experiences of sin evil and suffering which con-

7John Webster Barthrsquos Earlier Teology (London amp Clark 9830909830889830881048629) 10486258Ibid 9830949830929Peter Berger Te Sacred Canopy Elements o a Sociological Teory o Religion (New York Anchor

1048625983097983094983097) 983096983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 2: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 245

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 345

K A R L B A R T H rsquo S

I N F R A L A P S A R I A N

T H E O L O G Y

ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT

1920ndash1953

S H A O K A I T S E N G

FOREWORD BY GEORGE HUNSINGER

N E W E X P L O R A T I O N S

I N T H E O L O G Y

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 445

InterVarsity Press

PO Box 1048625104862810486241048624 Downers Grove IL 98309410486248520211048625852021-104862510486281048626983094

ivpresscom

emailivpresscom

copy104862610486241048625983094 by Shao Kai seng

All rights reserved No part o this book may be reproduced in any orm without written permission rom

InterVarsity Press

InterVarsity Pressreg is the book-publishing division o InterVarsity Christian FellowshipUSAreg a movement o

students and aculty active on campus at hundreds o universities colleges and schools o nursing in the UnitedStates o America and a member movement o the International Fellowship o Evangelical Students For

inormation about local and regional activities visit intervarsityorg

Cover design Cindy Kiple

Interior design Beth McGill

ISBN 10486331048631983096-1048624-98309610486271048624983096-852021104862510486271048626-1048628 (print)

ISBN 10486331048631983096-1048624-98309610486271048624983096-104863310486339830961048626-1048625 (digital)

Printed in the United States o America

As a member o the Green Press Initiative InterVarsity Press is committed to protectingthe environment and to the responsible use o natural resources o learn more visit

greenpressinitiativeorg

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record or this book is available rom the Library o Congress

P 10486261048627 10486261048626 10486261048625 10486261048624 10486251048633 1048625983096 10486251048631 1048625983094 1048625852021 10486251048628 10486251048627 10486251048626 10486251048625 10486251048624 1048633 983096 1048631 983094 852021 1048628 1048627 1048626 1048625

Y 1048627852021 10486271048628 10486271048627 10486271048626 10486271048625 10486271048624 10486261048633 1048626983096 10486261048631 1048626983094 1048626852021 10486261048628 10486261048627 10486261048626 10486261048625 10486261048624 10486251048633 1048625983096 10486251048631 1048625983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 545

ContentsForeword by George Hunsinger 983097

Acknowledgments 1048625983093

Abbreviations 1048625983097

Introduction 9830901048625

Part 983089 Reappraising Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position1048625 Supra- and Infralapsarianism in the Seventeenth

Century Some Definitions 10486281048625

983090 Church Dogmatics sect983091983091 Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position Reassessed 1048630983090

Part 983090 Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position in Development 9830891048633983090983088ndash98308910486339830931048627

983091 Roumlmerbrie II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Lapsarianism in the

ldquoImpossible Possibilityrdquo Dialectic 983096983091

1048628 he Goumlttingen-Muumlnster Period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Christology

and Predestination in the Subject-Object Dialectic 10486251048625983090

983093 he Bonn Years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) Human alk and Divine Wordmdash

New Developments 10486251048628983096

1048630 Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) Infralapsarian Aspects of Barthrsquos

Christocentric Doctrine of Election 1048625983095983095

983095 CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) Christ as Electing God and Elected

HumanmdashLapsarianism ldquoPurifiedrdquo 9830901048625983091

983096 CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Adamic History and History of Christmdash

Infralapsarian endencies in Barthrsquos Doctrine of Sin 9830901048628983090

Conclusion 9830909830971048624

Bibliography 98309110486241048625

Author Index 98309110486251048628

Subject Index 9830911048625983093

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 645

Introduction

S983157983138983146983141983139983156 M983137983156983156983141983154 T983144983141 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Tis book is a study on the twentieth-century Swiss theologian Karl Barthrsquos

christological and predestinarian treatments of the problem of human sin

and fallenness through the successive stages of his career from Romans II

(98308910486331048626983088) to CD IV983089 (983089104863310486291048627) Is the divine word of election and along with it

Godrsquos rejection of sinmdashBarth maintained throughout his theological career

that predestination must be understood as double predestination (ie as

election and reprobation)mdashaddressed to its object as fallen or unfallen In

historic Reformed theology this has been known as the ldquolapsarianrdquo (from

the Latin word lapsus meaning ldquothe fallrdquo) problem Supralapsarianism

(supra-lapsum above or before the fall) contends that in Godrsquos eternal deci-

sions God has in mind unfallen human beings as the object of election and

reprobation infralapsarianism (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) argues

that when God eternally issued the double decision of election and repro-

bation the human object was considered as fallen

In our postmetaphysical age these anglicized Latin scholastic terms may

seem obsolete and irrelevant Particularly in the field of Barth studies in which

terms like ldquometaphysicsrdquo and ldquonatural theologyrdquo are oen used pejoratively the

whole lapsarian debate may seem all the more repulsively speculative

However to simplistically label Barth as altogether antimetaphysical is to

misconstrue his intentions Barth rejects metaphysics as a method but theontological questions that metaphysics as a subdiscipline of philosophy

seeks to answer such as those of God of being and beings of becoming of

nature of origins and so on remain central to his theology As George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 745

10486261048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Pattison reminds us ldquoBarthian treatments of the relationship between act

and being and the nature of revelatory communicationrdquo serve to challenge

ldquorecent theologies that use the tropes of post-metaphysical philosophy toposition claims for the independence of theological enquiryrdquo983089 Te com-

plexity of Barthrsquos antimetaphysical approach to metaphysical questions

should caution against any simplistic dismissal of historic theological in-

quiries that do not seem at first glance to be of interest in our postmeta-

physical zeitgeist

Barth is known for surprising his readers at times by taking up theo-

logical problems that others have deemed speculative and unanswerable Infact to dismiss the lapsarian problem as ldquometaphysicalrdquo is to miss a crucial

part of Barthrsquos theology namely his insistence on seeking understanding of

the reality of sin in light of Godrsquos gracious election For him the history of

fallen humankind and what he calls nothingness indeed constitute an absurd

irrational and unexplainable reality but he insists that faith must seek to

understand this reality and take it seriously not for its own sake but for the

sake of understanding what Christ has done for us and in our stead Onlyby explicating this inexplicable reality in light of Godrsquos gracious election and

reprobation in Christ is it possible for the believer to truly understand (and

thus not understand) this reality and take it seriously (and thus laughingly)

Even though Barth takes issue with certain theological methods that clas-

sical supra- and infralapsarians have employed to answer the lapsarian

problem from Romans II (98308910486331048626983088) he deemed this inquiry worthy of pursuit

Barth even insists on retaining the supra-infra- nomenclature because

the logical orders that the terms imply are important for ruling out the pos-

sibility of natural theology in his reconstruction of the doctrine of election

he wants to make sure that no eternal act of God and no historical event is

understood detachedly from the highest word that God has uttered to hu-

mankind the word of Godrsquos gracious election

Yet if election is not understood christologically thenmdashas Barth would

consistently argue from 98308910486331048627983094 onwardmdashthe very doctrine of election would

itself become speculatively natural-theological in which case the theological

notion of sin would easily slip into an anthropological category and become

1George Pattison God and Being An Enquiry (Oxford Oxford University Press 98309098308810486251048625) 1048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 845

Introduction 10486261048627

some sort of a second god While his christological reorientation of the

doctrine of election only began in 98308910486331048627983094 from Romans II on he always made

sure to treat the problem of sin christologicallyFor this reason Barthrsquos doctrine of election is deeply related to christo-

logical lapsarianism As a note of explanation supralapsarian Christology

holds that God would have become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos sin

christological supralapsarians claim to possess knowledge of divine pur-

poses to become incarnate other than the purpose to reverse the human

plight of fallenness By contrast infralapsarian Christology without neces-

sarily denying that God could have become incarnate even if humankindhad not fallen into sin declines to claim knowledge of any divine purpose

for which God would have done so Infralapsarian Christology offers only

one answer to Anselmrsquos great question cur Deus homo (why God became

human) God decided to become incarnate for our salvation

More detailed definitions of predestinarian and christological supra- and

infralapsarianism will be provided anon Suffice it now to note that although

Barth does not apply lapsarian terminology to his Christology he engagesdeeply with christological lapsarianism One aim of this book is to paint a

picture of how Barth weaves together his Christology and doctrine of

election as a result of his reflections on the lapsarian problem demon-

strating how supra- and infralapsarian patterns of thinking are dialectically

interwoven in the development of his christological doctrine of election

N983137983154983154983137983156983145983151

When I was a student at Regent College Vancouver I participated in a

seminar on the atonement led by the prominent scholar of Puritan theology

the beloved J I Packer One session was dedicated to Karl Barth During

that session I suggested that in CD II1048626 election presupposes the fall o my

assertion Professor Packer responded ldquoIf you are right about Barth then he

would have to be an infralapsarian Irsquom quite intrigued because obviously

he calls himself a supralapsarianrdquo

Professor Packerrsquos comment piqued my interest in Barthrsquos lapsarian po-

sition and aer Regent I continued on to Princeton Teological Seminary

where I wrote a master of theology thesis on this subject under the super-

vision of one of the most respected Barth scholars of our day George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 945

1048626983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Hunsinger In my thesis I quoted Loraine Boettnerrsquos famous formulation of

the lapsarian question ldquoWhen the decrees of election and reprobation came

into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallenrdquo1048626

In the margin next to this quote on the printed copy of my submitted

thesis the master who taught me how to read Barth wrote ldquoBarth would say

lsquofallenrsquordquo However Professor Hunsinger issued the caveat that Barthrsquos mature

theology dialectically incorporates both supra- and infralapsarian patterns

of thinking while rejecting what he sees as their errors Tis key insight

eventually became the foundation and a central thesis of this monograph

While agreeing with my take on Barthrsquos view of the object of election atthat time Professor Hunsinger still preferred to think of Barth as basically

supralapsarian He wrote the following definition of supralapsarianism on

my submitted thesis ldquoStrictly supralapsarians are those who hold that in

pretemporal election God chose to elect some and reject others in order to

glorify himself and so created the world to carry out this planrdquo

I came to realize then that in the circle of Barth studies supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are defined quite differently than in the circle of Puritan andReformation studies o be sure definitions vary somewhat within Puritan

and Reformation studies themselves but there is at least a minimalist defi-

nition to which they would agree

o further demonstrate the case during my doctoral research I had a con-

versation with my friend Mark Jones who is a prolific young scholar in Pu-

ritan studies I told him that the majority of mainstream Barth scholars be-

lieve that Barth sees the object of election as fallen ldquoTatrsquos interestingmdashand

they still call Barth a supralapsarianrdquo responded Jones in his characteristi-

cally calm and unwavering voice raising his eyebrows as if putting a question

mark at the end of the sentence In fact whenever I tell friends from evan-

gelical Reformed circles that Barth sees the object of election as fallen their

responses are almost always something like ldquoTen why does Barth call

himself a supralapsarianrdquo or ldquoDoesnrsquot that make Barth an infralapsarianrdquo

When I raise these questions among friends from Barthian circles they

usually respond ldquoNo Barth is a supralapsarian because unlike the infralap-

sarians he doesnrsquot think of election as lsquoa reaction to previous events in the

2Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 1048625983090983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1045

Introduction 10486261048629

history of Godrsquos relations with usrsquordquo1048627 Tey might say with Barth Unlike the

infralapsarian the supralapsarian does not think of ldquoGodrsquos overruling of evil

as a later and additional struggle in which God is dealing with a new andto some extent disruptive eature in His original planrdquo1048628

Yet a Reformed evangelical might reply by quoting Herman Bavinck ldquoSo

lsquowas the fall actually a rustration o Godrsquos plan But no Reformed believers

even i they are inralapsarians can or may ever say such a thingrsquordquo983093 She might

add ldquoFor supra- and infralapsarians alike lsquoGodrsquos decision to be for us in

Jesus is not a reaction to previous events in the history of Godrsquos relations

with us but has a reality in its own right preceding the whole of that historyrsquordquo1048630

When I took up this understanding years ago and argued that Barth is in

fact basically infralapsarian by virtue of believing that the object of election

is fallen a then doctoral candidate at Princeton Seminarymdashwho agreed with

me that for Barth election presupposes humanityrsquos fallennessmdashresponded

to me in a short email comprising just one German word ldquoNein rdquo Evidently

Barth and Barthians define supra- and infralapsarianism quite differently

from most Reformed evangelicals especially specialists in Puritan and Ref-ormation studies

But why should this matter Shall those who say ldquochipsrdquo say unto the

others ldquoTou shalt not say lsquofriesrsquordquo Certainly notmdashas far as deep-fried po-

tatoes are concerned However the discrepancy between the two groups of

scholars at large with regard to the definitions of supra- and infralapsari-

anism is in fact of a different nature

For one thing it shows that evangelical critics of Barth who are familiar

with the Lapsarian Controversy have not understood his doctrine of election

which many consider to be the heart of his theology accurately enough to

recognize that he is not entirely a supralapsarian according to the way they

would define the word Conversely Barth and Barthians have not sufficiently

probed into Reformed-orthodox formulations of the doctrine of predesti-

nation to disagree with them with complete accuracy

3See Kathryn anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo in Te Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth ed

John Webster (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 983090983088983088983088) 104862510486259830924KD II983090 1048625983091983095 E 1048625983090983096-983090983097 (emphasis added)5Herman Bavinck Reormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend

(Grand Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 98309198309610486296Contra anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo 10486251048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1145

1048626983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Sorting out the terminology is unlikely to bring Barthians and evangel-

icals to a complete doctrinal agreement but I believe it would at least be

helpful for ongoing dialogues between these two diverse groups of scholarswho while having different loci of theological norms share many over-

lapping theological concerns and convictions

More importantly when Barth identifies himself as a supralapsarian he

does so in the context of the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth

century Understanding seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism would thus help us to place Barth in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition with which he was deeply yetcritically engaged As John Webster one leading Barth scholar of our day

puts it Barthrsquos engagement with historic Reformed theology was ldquodeeply

formative of the direction of his theological thinkingrdquo1048631

Webster laments that ldquoone of the graver weaknesses of some contem-

porary Christian theology is catechetical it has simply not learned the tradi-

tions of Christianity deeply enough and lovingly enough to be able to move

around within them restate them or even disagree with them with muchaccuracyrdquo1048632 Heeding Websterrsquos call to scholarly reappraisal of Barthrsquos theo-

logical development in light of his critical reappropriation of historic Re-

formed theology I will show that sorting out Barthrsquos lapsarian position in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition is a worthwhile and fruitful

endeavor in many ways it not only helps us gain more insight into Barthrsquos

theological development but can also lead to deeper and more accurate ap-

preciation of the tradition so formative to his theological thinking

T983144983141 T983144983141983151983140983145983139983161 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Te sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed that theodicy which

ldquorepresents the attempt to make a pact with deathrdquo is ldquocentral for any reli-

gious effort at world-maintenance and indeed also for any effort at the latter

on the basis of a non-religious Weltanschauung rdquo1048633 Tis is because theodicy

seeks to explain universal experiences of sin evil and suffering which con-

7John Webster Barthrsquos Earlier Teology (London amp Clark 9830909830889830881048629) 10486258Ibid 9830949830929Peter Berger Te Sacred Canopy Elements o a Sociological Teory o Religion (New York Anchor

1048625983097983094983097) 983096983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 3: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 345

K A R L B A R T H rsquo S

I N F R A L A P S A R I A N

T H E O L O G Y

ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT

1920ndash1953

S H A O K A I T S E N G

FOREWORD BY GEORGE HUNSINGER

N E W E X P L O R A T I O N S

I N T H E O L O G Y

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 445

InterVarsity Press

PO Box 1048625104862810486241048624 Downers Grove IL 98309410486248520211048625852021-104862510486281048626983094

ivpresscom

emailivpresscom

copy104862610486241048625983094 by Shao Kai seng

All rights reserved No part o this book may be reproduced in any orm without written permission rom

InterVarsity Press

InterVarsity Pressreg is the book-publishing division o InterVarsity Christian FellowshipUSAreg a movement o

students and aculty active on campus at hundreds o universities colleges and schools o nursing in the UnitedStates o America and a member movement o the International Fellowship o Evangelical Students For

inormation about local and regional activities visit intervarsityorg

Cover design Cindy Kiple

Interior design Beth McGill

ISBN 10486331048631983096-1048624-98309610486271048624983096-852021104862510486271048626-1048628 (print)

ISBN 10486331048631983096-1048624-98309610486271048624983096-104863310486339830961048626-1048625 (digital)

Printed in the United States o America

As a member o the Green Press Initiative InterVarsity Press is committed to protectingthe environment and to the responsible use o natural resources o learn more visit

greenpressinitiativeorg

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record or this book is available rom the Library o Congress

P 10486261048627 10486261048626 10486261048625 10486261048624 10486251048633 1048625983096 10486251048631 1048625983094 1048625852021 10486251048628 10486251048627 10486251048626 10486251048625 10486251048624 1048633 983096 1048631 983094 852021 1048628 1048627 1048626 1048625

Y 1048627852021 10486271048628 10486271048627 10486271048626 10486271048625 10486271048624 10486261048633 1048626983096 10486261048631 1048626983094 1048626852021 10486261048628 10486261048627 10486261048626 10486261048625 10486261048624 10486251048633 1048625983096 10486251048631 1048625983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 545

ContentsForeword by George Hunsinger 983097

Acknowledgments 1048625983093

Abbreviations 1048625983097

Introduction 9830901048625

Part 983089 Reappraising Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position1048625 Supra- and Infralapsarianism in the Seventeenth

Century Some Definitions 10486281048625

983090 Church Dogmatics sect983091983091 Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position Reassessed 1048630983090

Part 983090 Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position in Development 9830891048633983090983088ndash98308910486339830931048627

983091 Roumlmerbrie II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Lapsarianism in the

ldquoImpossible Possibilityrdquo Dialectic 983096983091

1048628 he Goumlttingen-Muumlnster Period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Christology

and Predestination in the Subject-Object Dialectic 10486251048625983090

983093 he Bonn Years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) Human alk and Divine Wordmdash

New Developments 10486251048628983096

1048630 Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) Infralapsarian Aspects of Barthrsquos

Christocentric Doctrine of Election 1048625983095983095

983095 CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) Christ as Electing God and Elected

HumanmdashLapsarianism ldquoPurifiedrdquo 9830901048625983091

983096 CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Adamic History and History of Christmdash

Infralapsarian endencies in Barthrsquos Doctrine of Sin 9830901048628983090

Conclusion 9830909830971048624

Bibliography 98309110486241048625

Author Index 98309110486251048628

Subject Index 9830911048625983093

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 645

Introduction

S983157983138983146983141983139983156 M983137983156983156983141983154 T983144983141 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Tis book is a study on the twentieth-century Swiss theologian Karl Barthrsquos

christological and predestinarian treatments of the problem of human sin

and fallenness through the successive stages of his career from Romans II

(98308910486331048626983088) to CD IV983089 (983089104863310486291048627) Is the divine word of election and along with it

Godrsquos rejection of sinmdashBarth maintained throughout his theological career

that predestination must be understood as double predestination (ie as

election and reprobation)mdashaddressed to its object as fallen or unfallen In

historic Reformed theology this has been known as the ldquolapsarianrdquo (from

the Latin word lapsus meaning ldquothe fallrdquo) problem Supralapsarianism

(supra-lapsum above or before the fall) contends that in Godrsquos eternal deci-

sions God has in mind unfallen human beings as the object of election and

reprobation infralapsarianism (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) argues

that when God eternally issued the double decision of election and repro-

bation the human object was considered as fallen

In our postmetaphysical age these anglicized Latin scholastic terms may

seem obsolete and irrelevant Particularly in the field of Barth studies in which

terms like ldquometaphysicsrdquo and ldquonatural theologyrdquo are oen used pejoratively the

whole lapsarian debate may seem all the more repulsively speculative

However to simplistically label Barth as altogether antimetaphysical is to

misconstrue his intentions Barth rejects metaphysics as a method but theontological questions that metaphysics as a subdiscipline of philosophy

seeks to answer such as those of God of being and beings of becoming of

nature of origins and so on remain central to his theology As George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 745

10486261048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Pattison reminds us ldquoBarthian treatments of the relationship between act

and being and the nature of revelatory communicationrdquo serve to challenge

ldquorecent theologies that use the tropes of post-metaphysical philosophy toposition claims for the independence of theological enquiryrdquo983089 Te com-

plexity of Barthrsquos antimetaphysical approach to metaphysical questions

should caution against any simplistic dismissal of historic theological in-

quiries that do not seem at first glance to be of interest in our postmeta-

physical zeitgeist

Barth is known for surprising his readers at times by taking up theo-

logical problems that others have deemed speculative and unanswerable Infact to dismiss the lapsarian problem as ldquometaphysicalrdquo is to miss a crucial

part of Barthrsquos theology namely his insistence on seeking understanding of

the reality of sin in light of Godrsquos gracious election For him the history of

fallen humankind and what he calls nothingness indeed constitute an absurd

irrational and unexplainable reality but he insists that faith must seek to

understand this reality and take it seriously not for its own sake but for the

sake of understanding what Christ has done for us and in our stead Onlyby explicating this inexplicable reality in light of Godrsquos gracious election and

reprobation in Christ is it possible for the believer to truly understand (and

thus not understand) this reality and take it seriously (and thus laughingly)

Even though Barth takes issue with certain theological methods that clas-

sical supra- and infralapsarians have employed to answer the lapsarian

problem from Romans II (98308910486331048626983088) he deemed this inquiry worthy of pursuit

Barth even insists on retaining the supra-infra- nomenclature because

the logical orders that the terms imply are important for ruling out the pos-

sibility of natural theology in his reconstruction of the doctrine of election

he wants to make sure that no eternal act of God and no historical event is

understood detachedly from the highest word that God has uttered to hu-

mankind the word of Godrsquos gracious election

Yet if election is not understood christologically thenmdashas Barth would

consistently argue from 98308910486331048627983094 onwardmdashthe very doctrine of election would

itself become speculatively natural-theological in which case the theological

notion of sin would easily slip into an anthropological category and become

1George Pattison God and Being An Enquiry (Oxford Oxford University Press 98309098308810486251048625) 1048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 845

Introduction 10486261048627

some sort of a second god While his christological reorientation of the

doctrine of election only began in 98308910486331048627983094 from Romans II on he always made

sure to treat the problem of sin christologicallyFor this reason Barthrsquos doctrine of election is deeply related to christo-

logical lapsarianism As a note of explanation supralapsarian Christology

holds that God would have become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos sin

christological supralapsarians claim to possess knowledge of divine pur-

poses to become incarnate other than the purpose to reverse the human

plight of fallenness By contrast infralapsarian Christology without neces-

sarily denying that God could have become incarnate even if humankindhad not fallen into sin declines to claim knowledge of any divine purpose

for which God would have done so Infralapsarian Christology offers only

one answer to Anselmrsquos great question cur Deus homo (why God became

human) God decided to become incarnate for our salvation

More detailed definitions of predestinarian and christological supra- and

infralapsarianism will be provided anon Suffice it now to note that although

Barth does not apply lapsarian terminology to his Christology he engagesdeeply with christological lapsarianism One aim of this book is to paint a

picture of how Barth weaves together his Christology and doctrine of

election as a result of his reflections on the lapsarian problem demon-

strating how supra- and infralapsarian patterns of thinking are dialectically

interwoven in the development of his christological doctrine of election

N983137983154983154983137983156983145983151

When I was a student at Regent College Vancouver I participated in a

seminar on the atonement led by the prominent scholar of Puritan theology

the beloved J I Packer One session was dedicated to Karl Barth During

that session I suggested that in CD II1048626 election presupposes the fall o my

assertion Professor Packer responded ldquoIf you are right about Barth then he

would have to be an infralapsarian Irsquom quite intrigued because obviously

he calls himself a supralapsarianrdquo

Professor Packerrsquos comment piqued my interest in Barthrsquos lapsarian po-

sition and aer Regent I continued on to Princeton Teological Seminary

where I wrote a master of theology thesis on this subject under the super-

vision of one of the most respected Barth scholars of our day George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 945

1048626983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Hunsinger In my thesis I quoted Loraine Boettnerrsquos famous formulation of

the lapsarian question ldquoWhen the decrees of election and reprobation came

into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallenrdquo1048626

In the margin next to this quote on the printed copy of my submitted

thesis the master who taught me how to read Barth wrote ldquoBarth would say

lsquofallenrsquordquo However Professor Hunsinger issued the caveat that Barthrsquos mature

theology dialectically incorporates both supra- and infralapsarian patterns

of thinking while rejecting what he sees as their errors Tis key insight

eventually became the foundation and a central thesis of this monograph

While agreeing with my take on Barthrsquos view of the object of election atthat time Professor Hunsinger still preferred to think of Barth as basically

supralapsarian He wrote the following definition of supralapsarianism on

my submitted thesis ldquoStrictly supralapsarians are those who hold that in

pretemporal election God chose to elect some and reject others in order to

glorify himself and so created the world to carry out this planrdquo

I came to realize then that in the circle of Barth studies supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are defined quite differently than in the circle of Puritan andReformation studies o be sure definitions vary somewhat within Puritan

and Reformation studies themselves but there is at least a minimalist defi-

nition to which they would agree

o further demonstrate the case during my doctoral research I had a con-

versation with my friend Mark Jones who is a prolific young scholar in Pu-

ritan studies I told him that the majority of mainstream Barth scholars be-

lieve that Barth sees the object of election as fallen ldquoTatrsquos interestingmdashand

they still call Barth a supralapsarianrdquo responded Jones in his characteristi-

cally calm and unwavering voice raising his eyebrows as if putting a question

mark at the end of the sentence In fact whenever I tell friends from evan-

gelical Reformed circles that Barth sees the object of election as fallen their

responses are almost always something like ldquoTen why does Barth call

himself a supralapsarianrdquo or ldquoDoesnrsquot that make Barth an infralapsarianrdquo

When I raise these questions among friends from Barthian circles they

usually respond ldquoNo Barth is a supralapsarian because unlike the infralap-

sarians he doesnrsquot think of election as lsquoa reaction to previous events in the

2Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 1048625983090983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1045

Introduction 10486261048629

history of Godrsquos relations with usrsquordquo1048627 Tey might say with Barth Unlike the

infralapsarian the supralapsarian does not think of ldquoGodrsquos overruling of evil

as a later and additional struggle in which God is dealing with a new andto some extent disruptive eature in His original planrdquo1048628

Yet a Reformed evangelical might reply by quoting Herman Bavinck ldquoSo

lsquowas the fall actually a rustration o Godrsquos plan But no Reformed believers

even i they are inralapsarians can or may ever say such a thingrsquordquo983093 She might

add ldquoFor supra- and infralapsarians alike lsquoGodrsquos decision to be for us in

Jesus is not a reaction to previous events in the history of Godrsquos relations

with us but has a reality in its own right preceding the whole of that historyrsquordquo1048630

When I took up this understanding years ago and argued that Barth is in

fact basically infralapsarian by virtue of believing that the object of election

is fallen a then doctoral candidate at Princeton Seminarymdashwho agreed with

me that for Barth election presupposes humanityrsquos fallennessmdashresponded

to me in a short email comprising just one German word ldquoNein rdquo Evidently

Barth and Barthians define supra- and infralapsarianism quite differently

from most Reformed evangelicals especially specialists in Puritan and Ref-ormation studies

But why should this matter Shall those who say ldquochipsrdquo say unto the

others ldquoTou shalt not say lsquofriesrsquordquo Certainly notmdashas far as deep-fried po-

tatoes are concerned However the discrepancy between the two groups of

scholars at large with regard to the definitions of supra- and infralapsari-

anism is in fact of a different nature

For one thing it shows that evangelical critics of Barth who are familiar

with the Lapsarian Controversy have not understood his doctrine of election

which many consider to be the heart of his theology accurately enough to

recognize that he is not entirely a supralapsarian according to the way they

would define the word Conversely Barth and Barthians have not sufficiently

probed into Reformed-orthodox formulations of the doctrine of predesti-

nation to disagree with them with complete accuracy

3See Kathryn anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo in Te Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth ed

John Webster (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 983090983088983088983088) 104862510486259830924KD II983090 1048625983091983095 E 1048625983090983096-983090983097 (emphasis added)5Herman Bavinck Reormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend

(Grand Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 98309198309610486296Contra anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo 10486251048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1145

1048626983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Sorting out the terminology is unlikely to bring Barthians and evangel-

icals to a complete doctrinal agreement but I believe it would at least be

helpful for ongoing dialogues between these two diverse groups of scholarswho while having different loci of theological norms share many over-

lapping theological concerns and convictions

More importantly when Barth identifies himself as a supralapsarian he

does so in the context of the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth

century Understanding seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism would thus help us to place Barth in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition with which he was deeply yetcritically engaged As John Webster one leading Barth scholar of our day

puts it Barthrsquos engagement with historic Reformed theology was ldquodeeply

formative of the direction of his theological thinkingrdquo1048631

Webster laments that ldquoone of the graver weaknesses of some contem-

porary Christian theology is catechetical it has simply not learned the tradi-

tions of Christianity deeply enough and lovingly enough to be able to move

around within them restate them or even disagree with them with muchaccuracyrdquo1048632 Heeding Websterrsquos call to scholarly reappraisal of Barthrsquos theo-

logical development in light of his critical reappropriation of historic Re-

formed theology I will show that sorting out Barthrsquos lapsarian position in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition is a worthwhile and fruitful

endeavor in many ways it not only helps us gain more insight into Barthrsquos

theological development but can also lead to deeper and more accurate ap-

preciation of the tradition so formative to his theological thinking

T983144983141 T983144983141983151983140983145983139983161 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Te sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed that theodicy which

ldquorepresents the attempt to make a pact with deathrdquo is ldquocentral for any reli-

gious effort at world-maintenance and indeed also for any effort at the latter

on the basis of a non-religious Weltanschauung rdquo1048633 Tis is because theodicy

seeks to explain universal experiences of sin evil and suffering which con-

7John Webster Barthrsquos Earlier Teology (London amp Clark 9830909830889830881048629) 10486258Ibid 9830949830929Peter Berger Te Sacred Canopy Elements o a Sociological Teory o Religion (New York Anchor

1048625983097983094983097) 983096983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 4: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 445

InterVarsity Press

PO Box 1048625104862810486241048624 Downers Grove IL 98309410486248520211048625852021-104862510486281048626983094

ivpresscom

emailivpresscom

copy104862610486241048625983094 by Shao Kai seng

All rights reserved No part o this book may be reproduced in any orm without written permission rom

InterVarsity Press

InterVarsity Pressreg is the book-publishing division o InterVarsity Christian FellowshipUSAreg a movement o

students and aculty active on campus at hundreds o universities colleges and schools o nursing in the UnitedStates o America and a member movement o the International Fellowship o Evangelical Students For

inormation about local and regional activities visit intervarsityorg

Cover design Cindy Kiple

Interior design Beth McGill

ISBN 10486331048631983096-1048624-98309610486271048624983096-852021104862510486271048626-1048628 (print)

ISBN 10486331048631983096-1048624-98309610486271048624983096-104863310486339830961048626-1048625 (digital)

Printed in the United States o America

As a member o the Green Press Initiative InterVarsity Press is committed to protectingthe environment and to the responsible use o natural resources o learn more visit

greenpressinitiativeorg

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record or this book is available rom the Library o Congress

P 10486261048627 10486261048626 10486261048625 10486261048624 10486251048633 1048625983096 10486251048631 1048625983094 1048625852021 10486251048628 10486251048627 10486251048626 10486251048625 10486251048624 1048633 983096 1048631 983094 852021 1048628 1048627 1048626 1048625

Y 1048627852021 10486271048628 10486271048627 10486271048626 10486271048625 10486271048624 10486261048633 1048626983096 10486261048631 1048626983094 1048626852021 10486261048628 10486261048627 10486261048626 10486261048625 10486261048624 10486251048633 1048625983096 10486251048631 1048625983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 545

ContentsForeword by George Hunsinger 983097

Acknowledgments 1048625983093

Abbreviations 1048625983097

Introduction 9830901048625

Part 983089 Reappraising Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position1048625 Supra- and Infralapsarianism in the Seventeenth

Century Some Definitions 10486281048625

983090 Church Dogmatics sect983091983091 Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position Reassessed 1048630983090

Part 983090 Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position in Development 9830891048633983090983088ndash98308910486339830931048627

983091 Roumlmerbrie II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Lapsarianism in the

ldquoImpossible Possibilityrdquo Dialectic 983096983091

1048628 he Goumlttingen-Muumlnster Period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Christology

and Predestination in the Subject-Object Dialectic 10486251048625983090

983093 he Bonn Years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) Human alk and Divine Wordmdash

New Developments 10486251048628983096

1048630 Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) Infralapsarian Aspects of Barthrsquos

Christocentric Doctrine of Election 1048625983095983095

983095 CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) Christ as Electing God and Elected

HumanmdashLapsarianism ldquoPurifiedrdquo 9830901048625983091

983096 CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Adamic History and History of Christmdash

Infralapsarian endencies in Barthrsquos Doctrine of Sin 9830901048628983090

Conclusion 9830909830971048624

Bibliography 98309110486241048625

Author Index 98309110486251048628

Subject Index 9830911048625983093

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 645

Introduction

S983157983138983146983141983139983156 M983137983156983156983141983154 T983144983141 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Tis book is a study on the twentieth-century Swiss theologian Karl Barthrsquos

christological and predestinarian treatments of the problem of human sin

and fallenness through the successive stages of his career from Romans II

(98308910486331048626983088) to CD IV983089 (983089104863310486291048627) Is the divine word of election and along with it

Godrsquos rejection of sinmdashBarth maintained throughout his theological career

that predestination must be understood as double predestination (ie as

election and reprobation)mdashaddressed to its object as fallen or unfallen In

historic Reformed theology this has been known as the ldquolapsarianrdquo (from

the Latin word lapsus meaning ldquothe fallrdquo) problem Supralapsarianism

(supra-lapsum above or before the fall) contends that in Godrsquos eternal deci-

sions God has in mind unfallen human beings as the object of election and

reprobation infralapsarianism (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) argues

that when God eternally issued the double decision of election and repro-

bation the human object was considered as fallen

In our postmetaphysical age these anglicized Latin scholastic terms may

seem obsolete and irrelevant Particularly in the field of Barth studies in which

terms like ldquometaphysicsrdquo and ldquonatural theologyrdquo are oen used pejoratively the

whole lapsarian debate may seem all the more repulsively speculative

However to simplistically label Barth as altogether antimetaphysical is to

misconstrue his intentions Barth rejects metaphysics as a method but theontological questions that metaphysics as a subdiscipline of philosophy

seeks to answer such as those of God of being and beings of becoming of

nature of origins and so on remain central to his theology As George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 745

10486261048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Pattison reminds us ldquoBarthian treatments of the relationship between act

and being and the nature of revelatory communicationrdquo serve to challenge

ldquorecent theologies that use the tropes of post-metaphysical philosophy toposition claims for the independence of theological enquiryrdquo983089 Te com-

plexity of Barthrsquos antimetaphysical approach to metaphysical questions

should caution against any simplistic dismissal of historic theological in-

quiries that do not seem at first glance to be of interest in our postmeta-

physical zeitgeist

Barth is known for surprising his readers at times by taking up theo-

logical problems that others have deemed speculative and unanswerable Infact to dismiss the lapsarian problem as ldquometaphysicalrdquo is to miss a crucial

part of Barthrsquos theology namely his insistence on seeking understanding of

the reality of sin in light of Godrsquos gracious election For him the history of

fallen humankind and what he calls nothingness indeed constitute an absurd

irrational and unexplainable reality but he insists that faith must seek to

understand this reality and take it seriously not for its own sake but for the

sake of understanding what Christ has done for us and in our stead Onlyby explicating this inexplicable reality in light of Godrsquos gracious election and

reprobation in Christ is it possible for the believer to truly understand (and

thus not understand) this reality and take it seriously (and thus laughingly)

Even though Barth takes issue with certain theological methods that clas-

sical supra- and infralapsarians have employed to answer the lapsarian

problem from Romans II (98308910486331048626983088) he deemed this inquiry worthy of pursuit

Barth even insists on retaining the supra-infra- nomenclature because

the logical orders that the terms imply are important for ruling out the pos-

sibility of natural theology in his reconstruction of the doctrine of election

he wants to make sure that no eternal act of God and no historical event is

understood detachedly from the highest word that God has uttered to hu-

mankind the word of Godrsquos gracious election

Yet if election is not understood christologically thenmdashas Barth would

consistently argue from 98308910486331048627983094 onwardmdashthe very doctrine of election would

itself become speculatively natural-theological in which case the theological

notion of sin would easily slip into an anthropological category and become

1George Pattison God and Being An Enquiry (Oxford Oxford University Press 98309098308810486251048625) 1048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 845

Introduction 10486261048627

some sort of a second god While his christological reorientation of the

doctrine of election only began in 98308910486331048627983094 from Romans II on he always made

sure to treat the problem of sin christologicallyFor this reason Barthrsquos doctrine of election is deeply related to christo-

logical lapsarianism As a note of explanation supralapsarian Christology

holds that God would have become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos sin

christological supralapsarians claim to possess knowledge of divine pur-

poses to become incarnate other than the purpose to reverse the human

plight of fallenness By contrast infralapsarian Christology without neces-

sarily denying that God could have become incarnate even if humankindhad not fallen into sin declines to claim knowledge of any divine purpose

for which God would have done so Infralapsarian Christology offers only

one answer to Anselmrsquos great question cur Deus homo (why God became

human) God decided to become incarnate for our salvation

More detailed definitions of predestinarian and christological supra- and

infralapsarianism will be provided anon Suffice it now to note that although

Barth does not apply lapsarian terminology to his Christology he engagesdeeply with christological lapsarianism One aim of this book is to paint a

picture of how Barth weaves together his Christology and doctrine of

election as a result of his reflections on the lapsarian problem demon-

strating how supra- and infralapsarian patterns of thinking are dialectically

interwoven in the development of his christological doctrine of election

N983137983154983154983137983156983145983151

When I was a student at Regent College Vancouver I participated in a

seminar on the atonement led by the prominent scholar of Puritan theology

the beloved J I Packer One session was dedicated to Karl Barth During

that session I suggested that in CD II1048626 election presupposes the fall o my

assertion Professor Packer responded ldquoIf you are right about Barth then he

would have to be an infralapsarian Irsquom quite intrigued because obviously

he calls himself a supralapsarianrdquo

Professor Packerrsquos comment piqued my interest in Barthrsquos lapsarian po-

sition and aer Regent I continued on to Princeton Teological Seminary

where I wrote a master of theology thesis on this subject under the super-

vision of one of the most respected Barth scholars of our day George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 945

1048626983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Hunsinger In my thesis I quoted Loraine Boettnerrsquos famous formulation of

the lapsarian question ldquoWhen the decrees of election and reprobation came

into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallenrdquo1048626

In the margin next to this quote on the printed copy of my submitted

thesis the master who taught me how to read Barth wrote ldquoBarth would say

lsquofallenrsquordquo However Professor Hunsinger issued the caveat that Barthrsquos mature

theology dialectically incorporates both supra- and infralapsarian patterns

of thinking while rejecting what he sees as their errors Tis key insight

eventually became the foundation and a central thesis of this monograph

While agreeing with my take on Barthrsquos view of the object of election atthat time Professor Hunsinger still preferred to think of Barth as basically

supralapsarian He wrote the following definition of supralapsarianism on

my submitted thesis ldquoStrictly supralapsarians are those who hold that in

pretemporal election God chose to elect some and reject others in order to

glorify himself and so created the world to carry out this planrdquo

I came to realize then that in the circle of Barth studies supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are defined quite differently than in the circle of Puritan andReformation studies o be sure definitions vary somewhat within Puritan

and Reformation studies themselves but there is at least a minimalist defi-

nition to which they would agree

o further demonstrate the case during my doctoral research I had a con-

versation with my friend Mark Jones who is a prolific young scholar in Pu-

ritan studies I told him that the majority of mainstream Barth scholars be-

lieve that Barth sees the object of election as fallen ldquoTatrsquos interestingmdashand

they still call Barth a supralapsarianrdquo responded Jones in his characteristi-

cally calm and unwavering voice raising his eyebrows as if putting a question

mark at the end of the sentence In fact whenever I tell friends from evan-

gelical Reformed circles that Barth sees the object of election as fallen their

responses are almost always something like ldquoTen why does Barth call

himself a supralapsarianrdquo or ldquoDoesnrsquot that make Barth an infralapsarianrdquo

When I raise these questions among friends from Barthian circles they

usually respond ldquoNo Barth is a supralapsarian because unlike the infralap-

sarians he doesnrsquot think of election as lsquoa reaction to previous events in the

2Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 1048625983090983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1045

Introduction 10486261048629

history of Godrsquos relations with usrsquordquo1048627 Tey might say with Barth Unlike the

infralapsarian the supralapsarian does not think of ldquoGodrsquos overruling of evil

as a later and additional struggle in which God is dealing with a new andto some extent disruptive eature in His original planrdquo1048628

Yet a Reformed evangelical might reply by quoting Herman Bavinck ldquoSo

lsquowas the fall actually a rustration o Godrsquos plan But no Reformed believers

even i they are inralapsarians can or may ever say such a thingrsquordquo983093 She might

add ldquoFor supra- and infralapsarians alike lsquoGodrsquos decision to be for us in

Jesus is not a reaction to previous events in the history of Godrsquos relations

with us but has a reality in its own right preceding the whole of that historyrsquordquo1048630

When I took up this understanding years ago and argued that Barth is in

fact basically infralapsarian by virtue of believing that the object of election

is fallen a then doctoral candidate at Princeton Seminarymdashwho agreed with

me that for Barth election presupposes humanityrsquos fallennessmdashresponded

to me in a short email comprising just one German word ldquoNein rdquo Evidently

Barth and Barthians define supra- and infralapsarianism quite differently

from most Reformed evangelicals especially specialists in Puritan and Ref-ormation studies

But why should this matter Shall those who say ldquochipsrdquo say unto the

others ldquoTou shalt not say lsquofriesrsquordquo Certainly notmdashas far as deep-fried po-

tatoes are concerned However the discrepancy between the two groups of

scholars at large with regard to the definitions of supra- and infralapsari-

anism is in fact of a different nature

For one thing it shows that evangelical critics of Barth who are familiar

with the Lapsarian Controversy have not understood his doctrine of election

which many consider to be the heart of his theology accurately enough to

recognize that he is not entirely a supralapsarian according to the way they

would define the word Conversely Barth and Barthians have not sufficiently

probed into Reformed-orthodox formulations of the doctrine of predesti-

nation to disagree with them with complete accuracy

3See Kathryn anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo in Te Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth ed

John Webster (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 983090983088983088983088) 104862510486259830924KD II983090 1048625983091983095 E 1048625983090983096-983090983097 (emphasis added)5Herman Bavinck Reormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend

(Grand Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 98309198309610486296Contra anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo 10486251048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1145

1048626983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Sorting out the terminology is unlikely to bring Barthians and evangel-

icals to a complete doctrinal agreement but I believe it would at least be

helpful for ongoing dialogues between these two diverse groups of scholarswho while having different loci of theological norms share many over-

lapping theological concerns and convictions

More importantly when Barth identifies himself as a supralapsarian he

does so in the context of the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth

century Understanding seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism would thus help us to place Barth in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition with which he was deeply yetcritically engaged As John Webster one leading Barth scholar of our day

puts it Barthrsquos engagement with historic Reformed theology was ldquodeeply

formative of the direction of his theological thinkingrdquo1048631

Webster laments that ldquoone of the graver weaknesses of some contem-

porary Christian theology is catechetical it has simply not learned the tradi-

tions of Christianity deeply enough and lovingly enough to be able to move

around within them restate them or even disagree with them with muchaccuracyrdquo1048632 Heeding Websterrsquos call to scholarly reappraisal of Barthrsquos theo-

logical development in light of his critical reappropriation of historic Re-

formed theology I will show that sorting out Barthrsquos lapsarian position in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition is a worthwhile and fruitful

endeavor in many ways it not only helps us gain more insight into Barthrsquos

theological development but can also lead to deeper and more accurate ap-

preciation of the tradition so formative to his theological thinking

T983144983141 T983144983141983151983140983145983139983161 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Te sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed that theodicy which

ldquorepresents the attempt to make a pact with deathrdquo is ldquocentral for any reli-

gious effort at world-maintenance and indeed also for any effort at the latter

on the basis of a non-religious Weltanschauung rdquo1048633 Tis is because theodicy

seeks to explain universal experiences of sin evil and suffering which con-

7John Webster Barthrsquos Earlier Teology (London amp Clark 9830909830889830881048629) 10486258Ibid 9830949830929Peter Berger Te Sacred Canopy Elements o a Sociological Teory o Religion (New York Anchor

1048625983097983094983097) 983096983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 5: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 545

ContentsForeword by George Hunsinger 983097

Acknowledgments 1048625983093

Abbreviations 1048625983097

Introduction 9830901048625

Part 983089 Reappraising Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position1048625 Supra- and Infralapsarianism in the Seventeenth

Century Some Definitions 10486281048625

983090 Church Dogmatics sect983091983091 Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position Reassessed 1048630983090

Part 983090 Barthrsquos Lapsarian Position in Development 9830891048633983090983088ndash98308910486339830931048627

983091 Roumlmerbrie II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Lapsarianism in the

ldquoImpossible Possibilityrdquo Dialectic 983096983091

1048628 he Goumlttingen-Muumlnster Period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Christology

and Predestination in the Subject-Object Dialectic 10486251048625983090

983093 he Bonn Years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) Human alk and Divine Wordmdash

New Developments 10486251048628983096

1048630 Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) Infralapsarian Aspects of Barthrsquos

Christocentric Doctrine of Election 1048625983095983095

983095 CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) Christ as Electing God and Elected

HumanmdashLapsarianism ldquoPurifiedrdquo 9830901048625983091

983096 CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Adamic History and History of Christmdash

Infralapsarian endencies in Barthrsquos Doctrine of Sin 9830901048628983090

Conclusion 9830909830971048624

Bibliography 98309110486241048625

Author Index 98309110486251048628

Subject Index 9830911048625983093

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 645

Introduction

S983157983138983146983141983139983156 M983137983156983156983141983154 T983144983141 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Tis book is a study on the twentieth-century Swiss theologian Karl Barthrsquos

christological and predestinarian treatments of the problem of human sin

and fallenness through the successive stages of his career from Romans II

(98308910486331048626983088) to CD IV983089 (983089104863310486291048627) Is the divine word of election and along with it

Godrsquos rejection of sinmdashBarth maintained throughout his theological career

that predestination must be understood as double predestination (ie as

election and reprobation)mdashaddressed to its object as fallen or unfallen In

historic Reformed theology this has been known as the ldquolapsarianrdquo (from

the Latin word lapsus meaning ldquothe fallrdquo) problem Supralapsarianism

(supra-lapsum above or before the fall) contends that in Godrsquos eternal deci-

sions God has in mind unfallen human beings as the object of election and

reprobation infralapsarianism (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) argues

that when God eternally issued the double decision of election and repro-

bation the human object was considered as fallen

In our postmetaphysical age these anglicized Latin scholastic terms may

seem obsolete and irrelevant Particularly in the field of Barth studies in which

terms like ldquometaphysicsrdquo and ldquonatural theologyrdquo are oen used pejoratively the

whole lapsarian debate may seem all the more repulsively speculative

However to simplistically label Barth as altogether antimetaphysical is to

misconstrue his intentions Barth rejects metaphysics as a method but theontological questions that metaphysics as a subdiscipline of philosophy

seeks to answer such as those of God of being and beings of becoming of

nature of origins and so on remain central to his theology As George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 745

10486261048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Pattison reminds us ldquoBarthian treatments of the relationship between act

and being and the nature of revelatory communicationrdquo serve to challenge

ldquorecent theologies that use the tropes of post-metaphysical philosophy toposition claims for the independence of theological enquiryrdquo983089 Te com-

plexity of Barthrsquos antimetaphysical approach to metaphysical questions

should caution against any simplistic dismissal of historic theological in-

quiries that do not seem at first glance to be of interest in our postmeta-

physical zeitgeist

Barth is known for surprising his readers at times by taking up theo-

logical problems that others have deemed speculative and unanswerable Infact to dismiss the lapsarian problem as ldquometaphysicalrdquo is to miss a crucial

part of Barthrsquos theology namely his insistence on seeking understanding of

the reality of sin in light of Godrsquos gracious election For him the history of

fallen humankind and what he calls nothingness indeed constitute an absurd

irrational and unexplainable reality but he insists that faith must seek to

understand this reality and take it seriously not for its own sake but for the

sake of understanding what Christ has done for us and in our stead Onlyby explicating this inexplicable reality in light of Godrsquos gracious election and

reprobation in Christ is it possible for the believer to truly understand (and

thus not understand) this reality and take it seriously (and thus laughingly)

Even though Barth takes issue with certain theological methods that clas-

sical supra- and infralapsarians have employed to answer the lapsarian

problem from Romans II (98308910486331048626983088) he deemed this inquiry worthy of pursuit

Barth even insists on retaining the supra-infra- nomenclature because

the logical orders that the terms imply are important for ruling out the pos-

sibility of natural theology in his reconstruction of the doctrine of election

he wants to make sure that no eternal act of God and no historical event is

understood detachedly from the highest word that God has uttered to hu-

mankind the word of Godrsquos gracious election

Yet if election is not understood christologically thenmdashas Barth would

consistently argue from 98308910486331048627983094 onwardmdashthe very doctrine of election would

itself become speculatively natural-theological in which case the theological

notion of sin would easily slip into an anthropological category and become

1George Pattison God and Being An Enquiry (Oxford Oxford University Press 98309098308810486251048625) 1048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 845

Introduction 10486261048627

some sort of a second god While his christological reorientation of the

doctrine of election only began in 98308910486331048627983094 from Romans II on he always made

sure to treat the problem of sin christologicallyFor this reason Barthrsquos doctrine of election is deeply related to christo-

logical lapsarianism As a note of explanation supralapsarian Christology

holds that God would have become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos sin

christological supralapsarians claim to possess knowledge of divine pur-

poses to become incarnate other than the purpose to reverse the human

plight of fallenness By contrast infralapsarian Christology without neces-

sarily denying that God could have become incarnate even if humankindhad not fallen into sin declines to claim knowledge of any divine purpose

for which God would have done so Infralapsarian Christology offers only

one answer to Anselmrsquos great question cur Deus homo (why God became

human) God decided to become incarnate for our salvation

More detailed definitions of predestinarian and christological supra- and

infralapsarianism will be provided anon Suffice it now to note that although

Barth does not apply lapsarian terminology to his Christology he engagesdeeply with christological lapsarianism One aim of this book is to paint a

picture of how Barth weaves together his Christology and doctrine of

election as a result of his reflections on the lapsarian problem demon-

strating how supra- and infralapsarian patterns of thinking are dialectically

interwoven in the development of his christological doctrine of election

N983137983154983154983137983156983145983151

When I was a student at Regent College Vancouver I participated in a

seminar on the atonement led by the prominent scholar of Puritan theology

the beloved J I Packer One session was dedicated to Karl Barth During

that session I suggested that in CD II1048626 election presupposes the fall o my

assertion Professor Packer responded ldquoIf you are right about Barth then he

would have to be an infralapsarian Irsquom quite intrigued because obviously

he calls himself a supralapsarianrdquo

Professor Packerrsquos comment piqued my interest in Barthrsquos lapsarian po-

sition and aer Regent I continued on to Princeton Teological Seminary

where I wrote a master of theology thesis on this subject under the super-

vision of one of the most respected Barth scholars of our day George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 945

1048626983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Hunsinger In my thesis I quoted Loraine Boettnerrsquos famous formulation of

the lapsarian question ldquoWhen the decrees of election and reprobation came

into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallenrdquo1048626

In the margin next to this quote on the printed copy of my submitted

thesis the master who taught me how to read Barth wrote ldquoBarth would say

lsquofallenrsquordquo However Professor Hunsinger issued the caveat that Barthrsquos mature

theology dialectically incorporates both supra- and infralapsarian patterns

of thinking while rejecting what he sees as their errors Tis key insight

eventually became the foundation and a central thesis of this monograph

While agreeing with my take on Barthrsquos view of the object of election atthat time Professor Hunsinger still preferred to think of Barth as basically

supralapsarian He wrote the following definition of supralapsarianism on

my submitted thesis ldquoStrictly supralapsarians are those who hold that in

pretemporal election God chose to elect some and reject others in order to

glorify himself and so created the world to carry out this planrdquo

I came to realize then that in the circle of Barth studies supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are defined quite differently than in the circle of Puritan andReformation studies o be sure definitions vary somewhat within Puritan

and Reformation studies themselves but there is at least a minimalist defi-

nition to which they would agree

o further demonstrate the case during my doctoral research I had a con-

versation with my friend Mark Jones who is a prolific young scholar in Pu-

ritan studies I told him that the majority of mainstream Barth scholars be-

lieve that Barth sees the object of election as fallen ldquoTatrsquos interestingmdashand

they still call Barth a supralapsarianrdquo responded Jones in his characteristi-

cally calm and unwavering voice raising his eyebrows as if putting a question

mark at the end of the sentence In fact whenever I tell friends from evan-

gelical Reformed circles that Barth sees the object of election as fallen their

responses are almost always something like ldquoTen why does Barth call

himself a supralapsarianrdquo or ldquoDoesnrsquot that make Barth an infralapsarianrdquo

When I raise these questions among friends from Barthian circles they

usually respond ldquoNo Barth is a supralapsarian because unlike the infralap-

sarians he doesnrsquot think of election as lsquoa reaction to previous events in the

2Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 1048625983090983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1045

Introduction 10486261048629

history of Godrsquos relations with usrsquordquo1048627 Tey might say with Barth Unlike the

infralapsarian the supralapsarian does not think of ldquoGodrsquos overruling of evil

as a later and additional struggle in which God is dealing with a new andto some extent disruptive eature in His original planrdquo1048628

Yet a Reformed evangelical might reply by quoting Herman Bavinck ldquoSo

lsquowas the fall actually a rustration o Godrsquos plan But no Reformed believers

even i they are inralapsarians can or may ever say such a thingrsquordquo983093 She might

add ldquoFor supra- and infralapsarians alike lsquoGodrsquos decision to be for us in

Jesus is not a reaction to previous events in the history of Godrsquos relations

with us but has a reality in its own right preceding the whole of that historyrsquordquo1048630

When I took up this understanding years ago and argued that Barth is in

fact basically infralapsarian by virtue of believing that the object of election

is fallen a then doctoral candidate at Princeton Seminarymdashwho agreed with

me that for Barth election presupposes humanityrsquos fallennessmdashresponded

to me in a short email comprising just one German word ldquoNein rdquo Evidently

Barth and Barthians define supra- and infralapsarianism quite differently

from most Reformed evangelicals especially specialists in Puritan and Ref-ormation studies

But why should this matter Shall those who say ldquochipsrdquo say unto the

others ldquoTou shalt not say lsquofriesrsquordquo Certainly notmdashas far as deep-fried po-

tatoes are concerned However the discrepancy between the two groups of

scholars at large with regard to the definitions of supra- and infralapsari-

anism is in fact of a different nature

For one thing it shows that evangelical critics of Barth who are familiar

with the Lapsarian Controversy have not understood his doctrine of election

which many consider to be the heart of his theology accurately enough to

recognize that he is not entirely a supralapsarian according to the way they

would define the word Conversely Barth and Barthians have not sufficiently

probed into Reformed-orthodox formulations of the doctrine of predesti-

nation to disagree with them with complete accuracy

3See Kathryn anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo in Te Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth ed

John Webster (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 983090983088983088983088) 104862510486259830924KD II983090 1048625983091983095 E 1048625983090983096-983090983097 (emphasis added)5Herman Bavinck Reormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend

(Grand Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 98309198309610486296Contra anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo 10486251048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1145

1048626983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Sorting out the terminology is unlikely to bring Barthians and evangel-

icals to a complete doctrinal agreement but I believe it would at least be

helpful for ongoing dialogues between these two diverse groups of scholarswho while having different loci of theological norms share many over-

lapping theological concerns and convictions

More importantly when Barth identifies himself as a supralapsarian he

does so in the context of the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth

century Understanding seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism would thus help us to place Barth in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition with which he was deeply yetcritically engaged As John Webster one leading Barth scholar of our day

puts it Barthrsquos engagement with historic Reformed theology was ldquodeeply

formative of the direction of his theological thinkingrdquo1048631

Webster laments that ldquoone of the graver weaknesses of some contem-

porary Christian theology is catechetical it has simply not learned the tradi-

tions of Christianity deeply enough and lovingly enough to be able to move

around within them restate them or even disagree with them with muchaccuracyrdquo1048632 Heeding Websterrsquos call to scholarly reappraisal of Barthrsquos theo-

logical development in light of his critical reappropriation of historic Re-

formed theology I will show that sorting out Barthrsquos lapsarian position in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition is a worthwhile and fruitful

endeavor in many ways it not only helps us gain more insight into Barthrsquos

theological development but can also lead to deeper and more accurate ap-

preciation of the tradition so formative to his theological thinking

T983144983141 T983144983141983151983140983145983139983161 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Te sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed that theodicy which

ldquorepresents the attempt to make a pact with deathrdquo is ldquocentral for any reli-

gious effort at world-maintenance and indeed also for any effort at the latter

on the basis of a non-religious Weltanschauung rdquo1048633 Tis is because theodicy

seeks to explain universal experiences of sin evil and suffering which con-

7John Webster Barthrsquos Earlier Teology (London amp Clark 9830909830889830881048629) 10486258Ibid 9830949830929Peter Berger Te Sacred Canopy Elements o a Sociological Teory o Religion (New York Anchor

1048625983097983094983097) 983096983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 6: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 645

Introduction

S983157983138983146983141983139983156 M983137983156983156983141983154 T983144983141 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Tis book is a study on the twentieth-century Swiss theologian Karl Barthrsquos

christological and predestinarian treatments of the problem of human sin

and fallenness through the successive stages of his career from Romans II

(98308910486331048626983088) to CD IV983089 (983089104863310486291048627) Is the divine word of election and along with it

Godrsquos rejection of sinmdashBarth maintained throughout his theological career

that predestination must be understood as double predestination (ie as

election and reprobation)mdashaddressed to its object as fallen or unfallen In

historic Reformed theology this has been known as the ldquolapsarianrdquo (from

the Latin word lapsus meaning ldquothe fallrdquo) problem Supralapsarianism

(supra-lapsum above or before the fall) contends that in Godrsquos eternal deci-

sions God has in mind unfallen human beings as the object of election and

reprobation infralapsarianism (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) argues

that when God eternally issued the double decision of election and repro-

bation the human object was considered as fallen

In our postmetaphysical age these anglicized Latin scholastic terms may

seem obsolete and irrelevant Particularly in the field of Barth studies in which

terms like ldquometaphysicsrdquo and ldquonatural theologyrdquo are oen used pejoratively the

whole lapsarian debate may seem all the more repulsively speculative

However to simplistically label Barth as altogether antimetaphysical is to

misconstrue his intentions Barth rejects metaphysics as a method but theontological questions that metaphysics as a subdiscipline of philosophy

seeks to answer such as those of God of being and beings of becoming of

nature of origins and so on remain central to his theology As George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 745

10486261048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Pattison reminds us ldquoBarthian treatments of the relationship between act

and being and the nature of revelatory communicationrdquo serve to challenge

ldquorecent theologies that use the tropes of post-metaphysical philosophy toposition claims for the independence of theological enquiryrdquo983089 Te com-

plexity of Barthrsquos antimetaphysical approach to metaphysical questions

should caution against any simplistic dismissal of historic theological in-

quiries that do not seem at first glance to be of interest in our postmeta-

physical zeitgeist

Barth is known for surprising his readers at times by taking up theo-

logical problems that others have deemed speculative and unanswerable Infact to dismiss the lapsarian problem as ldquometaphysicalrdquo is to miss a crucial

part of Barthrsquos theology namely his insistence on seeking understanding of

the reality of sin in light of Godrsquos gracious election For him the history of

fallen humankind and what he calls nothingness indeed constitute an absurd

irrational and unexplainable reality but he insists that faith must seek to

understand this reality and take it seriously not for its own sake but for the

sake of understanding what Christ has done for us and in our stead Onlyby explicating this inexplicable reality in light of Godrsquos gracious election and

reprobation in Christ is it possible for the believer to truly understand (and

thus not understand) this reality and take it seriously (and thus laughingly)

Even though Barth takes issue with certain theological methods that clas-

sical supra- and infralapsarians have employed to answer the lapsarian

problem from Romans II (98308910486331048626983088) he deemed this inquiry worthy of pursuit

Barth even insists on retaining the supra-infra- nomenclature because

the logical orders that the terms imply are important for ruling out the pos-

sibility of natural theology in his reconstruction of the doctrine of election

he wants to make sure that no eternal act of God and no historical event is

understood detachedly from the highest word that God has uttered to hu-

mankind the word of Godrsquos gracious election

Yet if election is not understood christologically thenmdashas Barth would

consistently argue from 98308910486331048627983094 onwardmdashthe very doctrine of election would

itself become speculatively natural-theological in which case the theological

notion of sin would easily slip into an anthropological category and become

1George Pattison God and Being An Enquiry (Oxford Oxford University Press 98309098308810486251048625) 1048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 845

Introduction 10486261048627

some sort of a second god While his christological reorientation of the

doctrine of election only began in 98308910486331048627983094 from Romans II on he always made

sure to treat the problem of sin christologicallyFor this reason Barthrsquos doctrine of election is deeply related to christo-

logical lapsarianism As a note of explanation supralapsarian Christology

holds that God would have become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos sin

christological supralapsarians claim to possess knowledge of divine pur-

poses to become incarnate other than the purpose to reverse the human

plight of fallenness By contrast infralapsarian Christology without neces-

sarily denying that God could have become incarnate even if humankindhad not fallen into sin declines to claim knowledge of any divine purpose

for which God would have done so Infralapsarian Christology offers only

one answer to Anselmrsquos great question cur Deus homo (why God became

human) God decided to become incarnate for our salvation

More detailed definitions of predestinarian and christological supra- and

infralapsarianism will be provided anon Suffice it now to note that although

Barth does not apply lapsarian terminology to his Christology he engagesdeeply with christological lapsarianism One aim of this book is to paint a

picture of how Barth weaves together his Christology and doctrine of

election as a result of his reflections on the lapsarian problem demon-

strating how supra- and infralapsarian patterns of thinking are dialectically

interwoven in the development of his christological doctrine of election

N983137983154983154983137983156983145983151

When I was a student at Regent College Vancouver I participated in a

seminar on the atonement led by the prominent scholar of Puritan theology

the beloved J I Packer One session was dedicated to Karl Barth During

that session I suggested that in CD II1048626 election presupposes the fall o my

assertion Professor Packer responded ldquoIf you are right about Barth then he

would have to be an infralapsarian Irsquom quite intrigued because obviously

he calls himself a supralapsarianrdquo

Professor Packerrsquos comment piqued my interest in Barthrsquos lapsarian po-

sition and aer Regent I continued on to Princeton Teological Seminary

where I wrote a master of theology thesis on this subject under the super-

vision of one of the most respected Barth scholars of our day George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 945

1048626983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Hunsinger In my thesis I quoted Loraine Boettnerrsquos famous formulation of

the lapsarian question ldquoWhen the decrees of election and reprobation came

into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallenrdquo1048626

In the margin next to this quote on the printed copy of my submitted

thesis the master who taught me how to read Barth wrote ldquoBarth would say

lsquofallenrsquordquo However Professor Hunsinger issued the caveat that Barthrsquos mature

theology dialectically incorporates both supra- and infralapsarian patterns

of thinking while rejecting what he sees as their errors Tis key insight

eventually became the foundation and a central thesis of this monograph

While agreeing with my take on Barthrsquos view of the object of election atthat time Professor Hunsinger still preferred to think of Barth as basically

supralapsarian He wrote the following definition of supralapsarianism on

my submitted thesis ldquoStrictly supralapsarians are those who hold that in

pretemporal election God chose to elect some and reject others in order to

glorify himself and so created the world to carry out this planrdquo

I came to realize then that in the circle of Barth studies supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are defined quite differently than in the circle of Puritan andReformation studies o be sure definitions vary somewhat within Puritan

and Reformation studies themselves but there is at least a minimalist defi-

nition to which they would agree

o further demonstrate the case during my doctoral research I had a con-

versation with my friend Mark Jones who is a prolific young scholar in Pu-

ritan studies I told him that the majority of mainstream Barth scholars be-

lieve that Barth sees the object of election as fallen ldquoTatrsquos interestingmdashand

they still call Barth a supralapsarianrdquo responded Jones in his characteristi-

cally calm and unwavering voice raising his eyebrows as if putting a question

mark at the end of the sentence In fact whenever I tell friends from evan-

gelical Reformed circles that Barth sees the object of election as fallen their

responses are almost always something like ldquoTen why does Barth call

himself a supralapsarianrdquo or ldquoDoesnrsquot that make Barth an infralapsarianrdquo

When I raise these questions among friends from Barthian circles they

usually respond ldquoNo Barth is a supralapsarian because unlike the infralap-

sarians he doesnrsquot think of election as lsquoa reaction to previous events in the

2Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 1048625983090983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1045

Introduction 10486261048629

history of Godrsquos relations with usrsquordquo1048627 Tey might say with Barth Unlike the

infralapsarian the supralapsarian does not think of ldquoGodrsquos overruling of evil

as a later and additional struggle in which God is dealing with a new andto some extent disruptive eature in His original planrdquo1048628

Yet a Reformed evangelical might reply by quoting Herman Bavinck ldquoSo

lsquowas the fall actually a rustration o Godrsquos plan But no Reformed believers

even i they are inralapsarians can or may ever say such a thingrsquordquo983093 She might

add ldquoFor supra- and infralapsarians alike lsquoGodrsquos decision to be for us in

Jesus is not a reaction to previous events in the history of Godrsquos relations

with us but has a reality in its own right preceding the whole of that historyrsquordquo1048630

When I took up this understanding years ago and argued that Barth is in

fact basically infralapsarian by virtue of believing that the object of election

is fallen a then doctoral candidate at Princeton Seminarymdashwho agreed with

me that for Barth election presupposes humanityrsquos fallennessmdashresponded

to me in a short email comprising just one German word ldquoNein rdquo Evidently

Barth and Barthians define supra- and infralapsarianism quite differently

from most Reformed evangelicals especially specialists in Puritan and Ref-ormation studies

But why should this matter Shall those who say ldquochipsrdquo say unto the

others ldquoTou shalt not say lsquofriesrsquordquo Certainly notmdashas far as deep-fried po-

tatoes are concerned However the discrepancy between the two groups of

scholars at large with regard to the definitions of supra- and infralapsari-

anism is in fact of a different nature

For one thing it shows that evangelical critics of Barth who are familiar

with the Lapsarian Controversy have not understood his doctrine of election

which many consider to be the heart of his theology accurately enough to

recognize that he is not entirely a supralapsarian according to the way they

would define the word Conversely Barth and Barthians have not sufficiently

probed into Reformed-orthodox formulations of the doctrine of predesti-

nation to disagree with them with complete accuracy

3See Kathryn anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo in Te Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth ed

John Webster (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 983090983088983088983088) 104862510486259830924KD II983090 1048625983091983095 E 1048625983090983096-983090983097 (emphasis added)5Herman Bavinck Reormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend

(Grand Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 98309198309610486296Contra anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo 10486251048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1145

1048626983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Sorting out the terminology is unlikely to bring Barthians and evangel-

icals to a complete doctrinal agreement but I believe it would at least be

helpful for ongoing dialogues between these two diverse groups of scholarswho while having different loci of theological norms share many over-

lapping theological concerns and convictions

More importantly when Barth identifies himself as a supralapsarian he

does so in the context of the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth

century Understanding seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism would thus help us to place Barth in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition with which he was deeply yetcritically engaged As John Webster one leading Barth scholar of our day

puts it Barthrsquos engagement with historic Reformed theology was ldquodeeply

formative of the direction of his theological thinkingrdquo1048631

Webster laments that ldquoone of the graver weaknesses of some contem-

porary Christian theology is catechetical it has simply not learned the tradi-

tions of Christianity deeply enough and lovingly enough to be able to move

around within them restate them or even disagree with them with muchaccuracyrdquo1048632 Heeding Websterrsquos call to scholarly reappraisal of Barthrsquos theo-

logical development in light of his critical reappropriation of historic Re-

formed theology I will show that sorting out Barthrsquos lapsarian position in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition is a worthwhile and fruitful

endeavor in many ways it not only helps us gain more insight into Barthrsquos

theological development but can also lead to deeper and more accurate ap-

preciation of the tradition so formative to his theological thinking

T983144983141 T983144983141983151983140983145983139983161 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Te sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed that theodicy which

ldquorepresents the attempt to make a pact with deathrdquo is ldquocentral for any reli-

gious effort at world-maintenance and indeed also for any effort at the latter

on the basis of a non-religious Weltanschauung rdquo1048633 Tis is because theodicy

seeks to explain universal experiences of sin evil and suffering which con-

7John Webster Barthrsquos Earlier Teology (London amp Clark 9830909830889830881048629) 10486258Ibid 9830949830929Peter Berger Te Sacred Canopy Elements o a Sociological Teory o Religion (New York Anchor

1048625983097983094983097) 983096983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 7: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 745

10486261048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Pattison reminds us ldquoBarthian treatments of the relationship between act

and being and the nature of revelatory communicationrdquo serve to challenge

ldquorecent theologies that use the tropes of post-metaphysical philosophy toposition claims for the independence of theological enquiryrdquo983089 Te com-

plexity of Barthrsquos antimetaphysical approach to metaphysical questions

should caution against any simplistic dismissal of historic theological in-

quiries that do not seem at first glance to be of interest in our postmeta-

physical zeitgeist

Barth is known for surprising his readers at times by taking up theo-

logical problems that others have deemed speculative and unanswerable Infact to dismiss the lapsarian problem as ldquometaphysicalrdquo is to miss a crucial

part of Barthrsquos theology namely his insistence on seeking understanding of

the reality of sin in light of Godrsquos gracious election For him the history of

fallen humankind and what he calls nothingness indeed constitute an absurd

irrational and unexplainable reality but he insists that faith must seek to

understand this reality and take it seriously not for its own sake but for the

sake of understanding what Christ has done for us and in our stead Onlyby explicating this inexplicable reality in light of Godrsquos gracious election and

reprobation in Christ is it possible for the believer to truly understand (and

thus not understand) this reality and take it seriously (and thus laughingly)

Even though Barth takes issue with certain theological methods that clas-

sical supra- and infralapsarians have employed to answer the lapsarian

problem from Romans II (98308910486331048626983088) he deemed this inquiry worthy of pursuit

Barth even insists on retaining the supra-infra- nomenclature because

the logical orders that the terms imply are important for ruling out the pos-

sibility of natural theology in his reconstruction of the doctrine of election

he wants to make sure that no eternal act of God and no historical event is

understood detachedly from the highest word that God has uttered to hu-

mankind the word of Godrsquos gracious election

Yet if election is not understood christologically thenmdashas Barth would

consistently argue from 98308910486331048627983094 onwardmdashthe very doctrine of election would

itself become speculatively natural-theological in which case the theological

notion of sin would easily slip into an anthropological category and become

1George Pattison God and Being An Enquiry (Oxford Oxford University Press 98309098308810486251048625) 1048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 845

Introduction 10486261048627

some sort of a second god While his christological reorientation of the

doctrine of election only began in 98308910486331048627983094 from Romans II on he always made

sure to treat the problem of sin christologicallyFor this reason Barthrsquos doctrine of election is deeply related to christo-

logical lapsarianism As a note of explanation supralapsarian Christology

holds that God would have become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos sin

christological supralapsarians claim to possess knowledge of divine pur-

poses to become incarnate other than the purpose to reverse the human

plight of fallenness By contrast infralapsarian Christology without neces-

sarily denying that God could have become incarnate even if humankindhad not fallen into sin declines to claim knowledge of any divine purpose

for which God would have done so Infralapsarian Christology offers only

one answer to Anselmrsquos great question cur Deus homo (why God became

human) God decided to become incarnate for our salvation

More detailed definitions of predestinarian and christological supra- and

infralapsarianism will be provided anon Suffice it now to note that although

Barth does not apply lapsarian terminology to his Christology he engagesdeeply with christological lapsarianism One aim of this book is to paint a

picture of how Barth weaves together his Christology and doctrine of

election as a result of his reflections on the lapsarian problem demon-

strating how supra- and infralapsarian patterns of thinking are dialectically

interwoven in the development of his christological doctrine of election

N983137983154983154983137983156983145983151

When I was a student at Regent College Vancouver I participated in a

seminar on the atonement led by the prominent scholar of Puritan theology

the beloved J I Packer One session was dedicated to Karl Barth During

that session I suggested that in CD II1048626 election presupposes the fall o my

assertion Professor Packer responded ldquoIf you are right about Barth then he

would have to be an infralapsarian Irsquom quite intrigued because obviously

he calls himself a supralapsarianrdquo

Professor Packerrsquos comment piqued my interest in Barthrsquos lapsarian po-

sition and aer Regent I continued on to Princeton Teological Seminary

where I wrote a master of theology thesis on this subject under the super-

vision of one of the most respected Barth scholars of our day George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 945

1048626983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Hunsinger In my thesis I quoted Loraine Boettnerrsquos famous formulation of

the lapsarian question ldquoWhen the decrees of election and reprobation came

into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallenrdquo1048626

In the margin next to this quote on the printed copy of my submitted

thesis the master who taught me how to read Barth wrote ldquoBarth would say

lsquofallenrsquordquo However Professor Hunsinger issued the caveat that Barthrsquos mature

theology dialectically incorporates both supra- and infralapsarian patterns

of thinking while rejecting what he sees as their errors Tis key insight

eventually became the foundation and a central thesis of this monograph

While agreeing with my take on Barthrsquos view of the object of election atthat time Professor Hunsinger still preferred to think of Barth as basically

supralapsarian He wrote the following definition of supralapsarianism on

my submitted thesis ldquoStrictly supralapsarians are those who hold that in

pretemporal election God chose to elect some and reject others in order to

glorify himself and so created the world to carry out this planrdquo

I came to realize then that in the circle of Barth studies supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are defined quite differently than in the circle of Puritan andReformation studies o be sure definitions vary somewhat within Puritan

and Reformation studies themselves but there is at least a minimalist defi-

nition to which they would agree

o further demonstrate the case during my doctoral research I had a con-

versation with my friend Mark Jones who is a prolific young scholar in Pu-

ritan studies I told him that the majority of mainstream Barth scholars be-

lieve that Barth sees the object of election as fallen ldquoTatrsquos interestingmdashand

they still call Barth a supralapsarianrdquo responded Jones in his characteristi-

cally calm and unwavering voice raising his eyebrows as if putting a question

mark at the end of the sentence In fact whenever I tell friends from evan-

gelical Reformed circles that Barth sees the object of election as fallen their

responses are almost always something like ldquoTen why does Barth call

himself a supralapsarianrdquo or ldquoDoesnrsquot that make Barth an infralapsarianrdquo

When I raise these questions among friends from Barthian circles they

usually respond ldquoNo Barth is a supralapsarian because unlike the infralap-

sarians he doesnrsquot think of election as lsquoa reaction to previous events in the

2Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 1048625983090983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1045

Introduction 10486261048629

history of Godrsquos relations with usrsquordquo1048627 Tey might say with Barth Unlike the

infralapsarian the supralapsarian does not think of ldquoGodrsquos overruling of evil

as a later and additional struggle in which God is dealing with a new andto some extent disruptive eature in His original planrdquo1048628

Yet a Reformed evangelical might reply by quoting Herman Bavinck ldquoSo

lsquowas the fall actually a rustration o Godrsquos plan But no Reformed believers

even i they are inralapsarians can or may ever say such a thingrsquordquo983093 She might

add ldquoFor supra- and infralapsarians alike lsquoGodrsquos decision to be for us in

Jesus is not a reaction to previous events in the history of Godrsquos relations

with us but has a reality in its own right preceding the whole of that historyrsquordquo1048630

When I took up this understanding years ago and argued that Barth is in

fact basically infralapsarian by virtue of believing that the object of election

is fallen a then doctoral candidate at Princeton Seminarymdashwho agreed with

me that for Barth election presupposes humanityrsquos fallennessmdashresponded

to me in a short email comprising just one German word ldquoNein rdquo Evidently

Barth and Barthians define supra- and infralapsarianism quite differently

from most Reformed evangelicals especially specialists in Puritan and Ref-ormation studies

But why should this matter Shall those who say ldquochipsrdquo say unto the

others ldquoTou shalt not say lsquofriesrsquordquo Certainly notmdashas far as deep-fried po-

tatoes are concerned However the discrepancy between the two groups of

scholars at large with regard to the definitions of supra- and infralapsari-

anism is in fact of a different nature

For one thing it shows that evangelical critics of Barth who are familiar

with the Lapsarian Controversy have not understood his doctrine of election

which many consider to be the heart of his theology accurately enough to

recognize that he is not entirely a supralapsarian according to the way they

would define the word Conversely Barth and Barthians have not sufficiently

probed into Reformed-orthodox formulations of the doctrine of predesti-

nation to disagree with them with complete accuracy

3See Kathryn anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo in Te Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth ed

John Webster (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 983090983088983088983088) 104862510486259830924KD II983090 1048625983091983095 E 1048625983090983096-983090983097 (emphasis added)5Herman Bavinck Reormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend

(Grand Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 98309198309610486296Contra anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo 10486251048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1145

1048626983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Sorting out the terminology is unlikely to bring Barthians and evangel-

icals to a complete doctrinal agreement but I believe it would at least be

helpful for ongoing dialogues between these two diverse groups of scholarswho while having different loci of theological norms share many over-

lapping theological concerns and convictions

More importantly when Barth identifies himself as a supralapsarian he

does so in the context of the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth

century Understanding seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism would thus help us to place Barth in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition with which he was deeply yetcritically engaged As John Webster one leading Barth scholar of our day

puts it Barthrsquos engagement with historic Reformed theology was ldquodeeply

formative of the direction of his theological thinkingrdquo1048631

Webster laments that ldquoone of the graver weaknesses of some contem-

porary Christian theology is catechetical it has simply not learned the tradi-

tions of Christianity deeply enough and lovingly enough to be able to move

around within them restate them or even disagree with them with muchaccuracyrdquo1048632 Heeding Websterrsquos call to scholarly reappraisal of Barthrsquos theo-

logical development in light of his critical reappropriation of historic Re-

formed theology I will show that sorting out Barthrsquos lapsarian position in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition is a worthwhile and fruitful

endeavor in many ways it not only helps us gain more insight into Barthrsquos

theological development but can also lead to deeper and more accurate ap-

preciation of the tradition so formative to his theological thinking

T983144983141 T983144983141983151983140983145983139983161 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Te sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed that theodicy which

ldquorepresents the attempt to make a pact with deathrdquo is ldquocentral for any reli-

gious effort at world-maintenance and indeed also for any effort at the latter

on the basis of a non-religious Weltanschauung rdquo1048633 Tis is because theodicy

seeks to explain universal experiences of sin evil and suffering which con-

7John Webster Barthrsquos Earlier Teology (London amp Clark 9830909830889830881048629) 10486258Ibid 9830949830929Peter Berger Te Sacred Canopy Elements o a Sociological Teory o Religion (New York Anchor

1048625983097983094983097) 983096983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 8: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 845

Introduction 10486261048627

some sort of a second god While his christological reorientation of the

doctrine of election only began in 98308910486331048627983094 from Romans II on he always made

sure to treat the problem of sin christologicallyFor this reason Barthrsquos doctrine of election is deeply related to christo-

logical lapsarianism As a note of explanation supralapsarian Christology

holds that God would have become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos sin

christological supralapsarians claim to possess knowledge of divine pur-

poses to become incarnate other than the purpose to reverse the human

plight of fallenness By contrast infralapsarian Christology without neces-

sarily denying that God could have become incarnate even if humankindhad not fallen into sin declines to claim knowledge of any divine purpose

for which God would have done so Infralapsarian Christology offers only

one answer to Anselmrsquos great question cur Deus homo (why God became

human) God decided to become incarnate for our salvation

More detailed definitions of predestinarian and christological supra- and

infralapsarianism will be provided anon Suffice it now to note that although

Barth does not apply lapsarian terminology to his Christology he engagesdeeply with christological lapsarianism One aim of this book is to paint a

picture of how Barth weaves together his Christology and doctrine of

election as a result of his reflections on the lapsarian problem demon-

strating how supra- and infralapsarian patterns of thinking are dialectically

interwoven in the development of his christological doctrine of election

N983137983154983154983137983156983145983151

When I was a student at Regent College Vancouver I participated in a

seminar on the atonement led by the prominent scholar of Puritan theology

the beloved J I Packer One session was dedicated to Karl Barth During

that session I suggested that in CD II1048626 election presupposes the fall o my

assertion Professor Packer responded ldquoIf you are right about Barth then he

would have to be an infralapsarian Irsquom quite intrigued because obviously

he calls himself a supralapsarianrdquo

Professor Packerrsquos comment piqued my interest in Barthrsquos lapsarian po-

sition and aer Regent I continued on to Princeton Teological Seminary

where I wrote a master of theology thesis on this subject under the super-

vision of one of the most respected Barth scholars of our day George

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 945

1048626983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Hunsinger In my thesis I quoted Loraine Boettnerrsquos famous formulation of

the lapsarian question ldquoWhen the decrees of election and reprobation came

into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallenrdquo1048626

In the margin next to this quote on the printed copy of my submitted

thesis the master who taught me how to read Barth wrote ldquoBarth would say

lsquofallenrsquordquo However Professor Hunsinger issued the caveat that Barthrsquos mature

theology dialectically incorporates both supra- and infralapsarian patterns

of thinking while rejecting what he sees as their errors Tis key insight

eventually became the foundation and a central thesis of this monograph

While agreeing with my take on Barthrsquos view of the object of election atthat time Professor Hunsinger still preferred to think of Barth as basically

supralapsarian He wrote the following definition of supralapsarianism on

my submitted thesis ldquoStrictly supralapsarians are those who hold that in

pretemporal election God chose to elect some and reject others in order to

glorify himself and so created the world to carry out this planrdquo

I came to realize then that in the circle of Barth studies supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are defined quite differently than in the circle of Puritan andReformation studies o be sure definitions vary somewhat within Puritan

and Reformation studies themselves but there is at least a minimalist defi-

nition to which they would agree

o further demonstrate the case during my doctoral research I had a con-

versation with my friend Mark Jones who is a prolific young scholar in Pu-

ritan studies I told him that the majority of mainstream Barth scholars be-

lieve that Barth sees the object of election as fallen ldquoTatrsquos interestingmdashand

they still call Barth a supralapsarianrdquo responded Jones in his characteristi-

cally calm and unwavering voice raising his eyebrows as if putting a question

mark at the end of the sentence In fact whenever I tell friends from evan-

gelical Reformed circles that Barth sees the object of election as fallen their

responses are almost always something like ldquoTen why does Barth call

himself a supralapsarianrdquo or ldquoDoesnrsquot that make Barth an infralapsarianrdquo

When I raise these questions among friends from Barthian circles they

usually respond ldquoNo Barth is a supralapsarian because unlike the infralap-

sarians he doesnrsquot think of election as lsquoa reaction to previous events in the

2Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 1048625983090983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1045

Introduction 10486261048629

history of Godrsquos relations with usrsquordquo1048627 Tey might say with Barth Unlike the

infralapsarian the supralapsarian does not think of ldquoGodrsquos overruling of evil

as a later and additional struggle in which God is dealing with a new andto some extent disruptive eature in His original planrdquo1048628

Yet a Reformed evangelical might reply by quoting Herman Bavinck ldquoSo

lsquowas the fall actually a rustration o Godrsquos plan But no Reformed believers

even i they are inralapsarians can or may ever say such a thingrsquordquo983093 She might

add ldquoFor supra- and infralapsarians alike lsquoGodrsquos decision to be for us in

Jesus is not a reaction to previous events in the history of Godrsquos relations

with us but has a reality in its own right preceding the whole of that historyrsquordquo1048630

When I took up this understanding years ago and argued that Barth is in

fact basically infralapsarian by virtue of believing that the object of election

is fallen a then doctoral candidate at Princeton Seminarymdashwho agreed with

me that for Barth election presupposes humanityrsquos fallennessmdashresponded

to me in a short email comprising just one German word ldquoNein rdquo Evidently

Barth and Barthians define supra- and infralapsarianism quite differently

from most Reformed evangelicals especially specialists in Puritan and Ref-ormation studies

But why should this matter Shall those who say ldquochipsrdquo say unto the

others ldquoTou shalt not say lsquofriesrsquordquo Certainly notmdashas far as deep-fried po-

tatoes are concerned However the discrepancy between the two groups of

scholars at large with regard to the definitions of supra- and infralapsari-

anism is in fact of a different nature

For one thing it shows that evangelical critics of Barth who are familiar

with the Lapsarian Controversy have not understood his doctrine of election

which many consider to be the heart of his theology accurately enough to

recognize that he is not entirely a supralapsarian according to the way they

would define the word Conversely Barth and Barthians have not sufficiently

probed into Reformed-orthodox formulations of the doctrine of predesti-

nation to disagree with them with complete accuracy

3See Kathryn anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo in Te Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth ed

John Webster (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 983090983088983088983088) 104862510486259830924KD II983090 1048625983091983095 E 1048625983090983096-983090983097 (emphasis added)5Herman Bavinck Reormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend

(Grand Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 98309198309610486296Contra anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo 10486251048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1145

1048626983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Sorting out the terminology is unlikely to bring Barthians and evangel-

icals to a complete doctrinal agreement but I believe it would at least be

helpful for ongoing dialogues between these two diverse groups of scholarswho while having different loci of theological norms share many over-

lapping theological concerns and convictions

More importantly when Barth identifies himself as a supralapsarian he

does so in the context of the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth

century Understanding seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism would thus help us to place Barth in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition with which he was deeply yetcritically engaged As John Webster one leading Barth scholar of our day

puts it Barthrsquos engagement with historic Reformed theology was ldquodeeply

formative of the direction of his theological thinkingrdquo1048631

Webster laments that ldquoone of the graver weaknesses of some contem-

porary Christian theology is catechetical it has simply not learned the tradi-

tions of Christianity deeply enough and lovingly enough to be able to move

around within them restate them or even disagree with them with muchaccuracyrdquo1048632 Heeding Websterrsquos call to scholarly reappraisal of Barthrsquos theo-

logical development in light of his critical reappropriation of historic Re-

formed theology I will show that sorting out Barthrsquos lapsarian position in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition is a worthwhile and fruitful

endeavor in many ways it not only helps us gain more insight into Barthrsquos

theological development but can also lead to deeper and more accurate ap-

preciation of the tradition so formative to his theological thinking

T983144983141 T983144983141983151983140983145983139983161 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Te sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed that theodicy which

ldquorepresents the attempt to make a pact with deathrdquo is ldquocentral for any reli-

gious effort at world-maintenance and indeed also for any effort at the latter

on the basis of a non-religious Weltanschauung rdquo1048633 Tis is because theodicy

seeks to explain universal experiences of sin evil and suffering which con-

7John Webster Barthrsquos Earlier Teology (London amp Clark 9830909830889830881048629) 10486258Ibid 9830949830929Peter Berger Te Sacred Canopy Elements o a Sociological Teory o Religion (New York Anchor

1048625983097983094983097) 983096983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 9: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 945

1048626983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Hunsinger In my thesis I quoted Loraine Boettnerrsquos famous formulation of

the lapsarian question ldquoWhen the decrees of election and reprobation came

into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallenrdquo1048626

In the margin next to this quote on the printed copy of my submitted

thesis the master who taught me how to read Barth wrote ldquoBarth would say

lsquofallenrsquordquo However Professor Hunsinger issued the caveat that Barthrsquos mature

theology dialectically incorporates both supra- and infralapsarian patterns

of thinking while rejecting what he sees as their errors Tis key insight

eventually became the foundation and a central thesis of this monograph

While agreeing with my take on Barthrsquos view of the object of election atthat time Professor Hunsinger still preferred to think of Barth as basically

supralapsarian He wrote the following definition of supralapsarianism on

my submitted thesis ldquoStrictly supralapsarians are those who hold that in

pretemporal election God chose to elect some and reject others in order to

glorify himself and so created the world to carry out this planrdquo

I came to realize then that in the circle of Barth studies supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are defined quite differently than in the circle of Puritan andReformation studies o be sure definitions vary somewhat within Puritan

and Reformation studies themselves but there is at least a minimalist defi-

nition to which they would agree

o further demonstrate the case during my doctoral research I had a con-

versation with my friend Mark Jones who is a prolific young scholar in Pu-

ritan studies I told him that the majority of mainstream Barth scholars be-

lieve that Barth sees the object of election as fallen ldquoTatrsquos interestingmdashand

they still call Barth a supralapsarianrdquo responded Jones in his characteristi-

cally calm and unwavering voice raising his eyebrows as if putting a question

mark at the end of the sentence In fact whenever I tell friends from evan-

gelical Reformed circles that Barth sees the object of election as fallen their

responses are almost always something like ldquoTen why does Barth call

himself a supralapsarianrdquo or ldquoDoesnrsquot that make Barth an infralapsarianrdquo

When I raise these questions among friends from Barthian circles they

usually respond ldquoNo Barth is a supralapsarian because unlike the infralap-

sarians he doesnrsquot think of election as lsquoa reaction to previous events in the

2Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 1048625983090983094

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1045

Introduction 10486261048629

history of Godrsquos relations with usrsquordquo1048627 Tey might say with Barth Unlike the

infralapsarian the supralapsarian does not think of ldquoGodrsquos overruling of evil

as a later and additional struggle in which God is dealing with a new andto some extent disruptive eature in His original planrdquo1048628

Yet a Reformed evangelical might reply by quoting Herman Bavinck ldquoSo

lsquowas the fall actually a rustration o Godrsquos plan But no Reformed believers

even i they are inralapsarians can or may ever say such a thingrsquordquo983093 She might

add ldquoFor supra- and infralapsarians alike lsquoGodrsquos decision to be for us in

Jesus is not a reaction to previous events in the history of Godrsquos relations

with us but has a reality in its own right preceding the whole of that historyrsquordquo1048630

When I took up this understanding years ago and argued that Barth is in

fact basically infralapsarian by virtue of believing that the object of election

is fallen a then doctoral candidate at Princeton Seminarymdashwho agreed with

me that for Barth election presupposes humanityrsquos fallennessmdashresponded

to me in a short email comprising just one German word ldquoNein rdquo Evidently

Barth and Barthians define supra- and infralapsarianism quite differently

from most Reformed evangelicals especially specialists in Puritan and Ref-ormation studies

But why should this matter Shall those who say ldquochipsrdquo say unto the

others ldquoTou shalt not say lsquofriesrsquordquo Certainly notmdashas far as deep-fried po-

tatoes are concerned However the discrepancy between the two groups of

scholars at large with regard to the definitions of supra- and infralapsari-

anism is in fact of a different nature

For one thing it shows that evangelical critics of Barth who are familiar

with the Lapsarian Controversy have not understood his doctrine of election

which many consider to be the heart of his theology accurately enough to

recognize that he is not entirely a supralapsarian according to the way they

would define the word Conversely Barth and Barthians have not sufficiently

probed into Reformed-orthodox formulations of the doctrine of predesti-

nation to disagree with them with complete accuracy

3See Kathryn anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo in Te Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth ed

John Webster (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 983090983088983088983088) 104862510486259830924KD II983090 1048625983091983095 E 1048625983090983096-983090983097 (emphasis added)5Herman Bavinck Reormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend

(Grand Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 98309198309610486296Contra anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo 10486251048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1145

1048626983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Sorting out the terminology is unlikely to bring Barthians and evangel-

icals to a complete doctrinal agreement but I believe it would at least be

helpful for ongoing dialogues between these two diverse groups of scholarswho while having different loci of theological norms share many over-

lapping theological concerns and convictions

More importantly when Barth identifies himself as a supralapsarian he

does so in the context of the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth

century Understanding seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism would thus help us to place Barth in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition with which he was deeply yetcritically engaged As John Webster one leading Barth scholar of our day

puts it Barthrsquos engagement with historic Reformed theology was ldquodeeply

formative of the direction of his theological thinkingrdquo1048631

Webster laments that ldquoone of the graver weaknesses of some contem-

porary Christian theology is catechetical it has simply not learned the tradi-

tions of Christianity deeply enough and lovingly enough to be able to move

around within them restate them or even disagree with them with muchaccuracyrdquo1048632 Heeding Websterrsquos call to scholarly reappraisal of Barthrsquos theo-

logical development in light of his critical reappropriation of historic Re-

formed theology I will show that sorting out Barthrsquos lapsarian position in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition is a worthwhile and fruitful

endeavor in many ways it not only helps us gain more insight into Barthrsquos

theological development but can also lead to deeper and more accurate ap-

preciation of the tradition so formative to his theological thinking

T983144983141 T983144983141983151983140983145983139983161 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Te sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed that theodicy which

ldquorepresents the attempt to make a pact with deathrdquo is ldquocentral for any reli-

gious effort at world-maintenance and indeed also for any effort at the latter

on the basis of a non-religious Weltanschauung rdquo1048633 Tis is because theodicy

seeks to explain universal experiences of sin evil and suffering which con-

7John Webster Barthrsquos Earlier Teology (London amp Clark 9830909830889830881048629) 10486258Ibid 9830949830929Peter Berger Te Sacred Canopy Elements o a Sociological Teory o Religion (New York Anchor

1048625983097983094983097) 983096983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 10: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1045

Introduction 10486261048629

history of Godrsquos relations with usrsquordquo1048627 Tey might say with Barth Unlike the

infralapsarian the supralapsarian does not think of ldquoGodrsquos overruling of evil

as a later and additional struggle in which God is dealing with a new andto some extent disruptive eature in His original planrdquo1048628

Yet a Reformed evangelical might reply by quoting Herman Bavinck ldquoSo

lsquowas the fall actually a rustration o Godrsquos plan But no Reformed believers

even i they are inralapsarians can or may ever say such a thingrsquordquo983093 She might

add ldquoFor supra- and infralapsarians alike lsquoGodrsquos decision to be for us in

Jesus is not a reaction to previous events in the history of Godrsquos relations

with us but has a reality in its own right preceding the whole of that historyrsquordquo1048630

When I took up this understanding years ago and argued that Barth is in

fact basically infralapsarian by virtue of believing that the object of election

is fallen a then doctoral candidate at Princeton Seminarymdashwho agreed with

me that for Barth election presupposes humanityrsquos fallennessmdashresponded

to me in a short email comprising just one German word ldquoNein rdquo Evidently

Barth and Barthians define supra- and infralapsarianism quite differently

from most Reformed evangelicals especially specialists in Puritan and Ref-ormation studies

But why should this matter Shall those who say ldquochipsrdquo say unto the

others ldquoTou shalt not say lsquofriesrsquordquo Certainly notmdashas far as deep-fried po-

tatoes are concerned However the discrepancy between the two groups of

scholars at large with regard to the definitions of supra- and infralapsari-

anism is in fact of a different nature

For one thing it shows that evangelical critics of Barth who are familiar

with the Lapsarian Controversy have not understood his doctrine of election

which many consider to be the heart of his theology accurately enough to

recognize that he is not entirely a supralapsarian according to the way they

would define the word Conversely Barth and Barthians have not sufficiently

probed into Reformed-orthodox formulations of the doctrine of predesti-

nation to disagree with them with complete accuracy

3See Kathryn anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo in Te Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth ed

John Webster (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 983090983088983088983088) 104862510486259830924KD II983090 1048625983091983095 E 1048625983090983096-983090983097 (emphasis added)5Herman Bavinck Reormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend

(Grand Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 98309198309610486296Contra anner ldquoCreation and Providencerdquo 10486251048625983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1145

1048626983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Sorting out the terminology is unlikely to bring Barthians and evangel-

icals to a complete doctrinal agreement but I believe it would at least be

helpful for ongoing dialogues between these two diverse groups of scholarswho while having different loci of theological norms share many over-

lapping theological concerns and convictions

More importantly when Barth identifies himself as a supralapsarian he

does so in the context of the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth

century Understanding seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism would thus help us to place Barth in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition with which he was deeply yetcritically engaged As John Webster one leading Barth scholar of our day

puts it Barthrsquos engagement with historic Reformed theology was ldquodeeply

formative of the direction of his theological thinkingrdquo1048631

Webster laments that ldquoone of the graver weaknesses of some contem-

porary Christian theology is catechetical it has simply not learned the tradi-

tions of Christianity deeply enough and lovingly enough to be able to move

around within them restate them or even disagree with them with muchaccuracyrdquo1048632 Heeding Websterrsquos call to scholarly reappraisal of Barthrsquos theo-

logical development in light of his critical reappropriation of historic Re-

formed theology I will show that sorting out Barthrsquos lapsarian position in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition is a worthwhile and fruitful

endeavor in many ways it not only helps us gain more insight into Barthrsquos

theological development but can also lead to deeper and more accurate ap-

preciation of the tradition so formative to his theological thinking

T983144983141 T983144983141983151983140983145983139983161 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Te sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed that theodicy which

ldquorepresents the attempt to make a pact with deathrdquo is ldquocentral for any reli-

gious effort at world-maintenance and indeed also for any effort at the latter

on the basis of a non-religious Weltanschauung rdquo1048633 Tis is because theodicy

seeks to explain universal experiences of sin evil and suffering which con-

7John Webster Barthrsquos Earlier Teology (London amp Clark 9830909830889830881048629) 10486258Ibid 9830949830929Peter Berger Te Sacred Canopy Elements o a Sociological Teory o Religion (New York Anchor

1048625983097983094983097) 983096983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 11: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1145

1048626983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Sorting out the terminology is unlikely to bring Barthians and evangel-

icals to a complete doctrinal agreement but I believe it would at least be

helpful for ongoing dialogues between these two diverse groups of scholarswho while having different loci of theological norms share many over-

lapping theological concerns and convictions

More importantly when Barth identifies himself as a supralapsarian he

does so in the context of the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth

century Understanding seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism would thus help us to place Barth in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition with which he was deeply yetcritically engaged As John Webster one leading Barth scholar of our day

puts it Barthrsquos engagement with historic Reformed theology was ldquodeeply

formative of the direction of his theological thinkingrdquo1048631

Webster laments that ldquoone of the graver weaknesses of some contem-

porary Christian theology is catechetical it has simply not learned the tradi-

tions of Christianity deeply enough and lovingly enough to be able to move

around within them restate them or even disagree with them with muchaccuracyrdquo1048632 Heeding Websterrsquos call to scholarly reappraisal of Barthrsquos theo-

logical development in light of his critical reappropriation of historic Re-

formed theology I will show that sorting out Barthrsquos lapsarian position in

the context of the broader Reformed tradition is a worthwhile and fruitful

endeavor in many ways it not only helps us gain more insight into Barthrsquos

theological development but can also lead to deeper and more accurate ap-

preciation of the tradition so formative to his theological thinking

T983144983141 T983144983141983151983140983145983139983161 P983154983151983138983148983141983149

Te sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed that theodicy which

ldquorepresents the attempt to make a pact with deathrdquo is ldquocentral for any reli-

gious effort at world-maintenance and indeed also for any effort at the latter

on the basis of a non-religious Weltanschauung rdquo1048633 Tis is because theodicy

seeks to explain universal experiences of sin evil and suffering which con-

7John Webster Barthrsquos Earlier Teology (London amp Clark 9830909830889830881048629) 10486258Ibid 9830949830929Peter Berger Te Sacred Canopy Elements o a Sociological Teory o Religion (New York Anchor

1048625983097983094983097) 983096983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 12: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1245

Introduction 10486261048631

stitute an a posteriori reality that Barthrsquos version(s) of (neo-)Kantianism has

sought to address since the 9830891048633983089983088s Berger argues that Christianity in the

modern West is threatening to dissolve because of the difficulty in recon-ciling faith in an almighty Father with the universal ldquoterrorrdquo of ldquochaosrdquo and

ldquoinsanityrdquo9830891048624 He warns that ldquoif the Christian explanation of the world no

longer holds then the Christian legitimation of social order cannot be main-

tained very long eitherrdquo983089983089

Te challenge Berger describes here was an especially acute problem for

Christians in the first half of the twentieth century during which traditional

Christian explanations of the world had been challenged by centuries ofmodernization and neo-Protestant world-explanations from the nineteenth

century were struggling for survival amid chaotic forces that culminated in

the two World Wars Tis was a time when Western Europe saw an out-

pouring of profound theological reflections from the likes of Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Hans Urs von Balthasar Henri de

Lubac and others

Barth who witnessed firsthand the rise of the Tird Reich as a residentalien in Germany also came to develop during those chaotic days his christo-

centric doctrine of election as an attempt to testify to the universal lordship

of Jesus Christ the gracious and sovereign God-with-us and God-for-us

It must be emphasized however that strictly speaking Barthrsquos theology was

not so much a response to the ldquocrisisrdquo of his time but rather an endeavor to

witness to Christ in defiance of the ldquocrisisrdquo His theology was not really guided

or driven by theodicymdashwhich he saw as a prideful human attempt to justify the

God who alone is entitled to justifymdashbut rather a deep desire to point the church

so that the church may point the chaotic world to her Lord and Savior Increas-

ingly in his career Barth would see himself as a theologian or the church and

o the church the community that God has elected and called to proclaim Godrsquos

Word hence the title of his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

As early as Romans II (98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) Barth saw in the seventeenth-century

Reformed-orthodox debate between supra- and infralapsarians an im-

10Ibid 98309098309011Ibid 983095983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 13: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1345

10486261048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

portant formulation of the theodicy problem Yet he increasingly came to

feel that classical Reformed answers to the problem were inadequate for the

task of theology namely to proclaim the Word of God as revealed in Christbecause of what he understood (and in many ways misunderstood) to be

some of Reformed orthodoxyrsquos basic assumptions

As a note of recapitulation and further explanation supralapsarianism is

the position that in the double act of election and reprobation God has in

mind unfallen humanity as the object of predestination (obiectum praedes-

tinationis) this has been variously described as lapsable humanity (homo

labilis) humanity yet to fall (homo lapsandus) and not yet fallen humanity(homo nondum lapsus) By contrast infralapsarianism states that in divine

predestination Godrsquos conception of the object of election-reprobation is

fallen humanity (ie obiectum praedestinationis as homo lapsus) Note that

the infralapsarian obiectum is Godrsquos eternal conception of homo lapsus but

not humanity actually created and fallen in history

When the Lapsarian Controversy had developed into maturity both sides

would generally agree that (983089) God is not the author of sin (1048626) humankindrsquosfall occurred by an efficaciously permissive decree of God and this decree

is therefore by no means a new or disruptive feature in Godrsquos original plan

and (1048627) election is unconditional and is thus by no means a later or addi-

tional struggle whereby God responds to the actuality of sin

In the current analysis the problem over which supra- and infralapsarians

of the seventeenth century debated is basically a Reformed formulation of

the theodicy problem given that God is absolutely good and sovereign how

was it that God decreedmdasheven though permissivelymdashhumanityrsquos fall and

how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of Godrsquos own crea-

tures unto perdition

Te diverse answers that supra- and infralapsarians gave to this question

will be discussed in chapters one and two Suffice it now to note that in

Barthrsquos viewmdashespecially aer having started to develop his Christocentric

doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094mdashthere are fatal flaws to this way of framing the

lapsarian question First Reformed orthodoxy speaks of reprobation and

the fall in terms of divine decrees which for Barth does not sufficiently stress

Godrsquos absolute nonwilling of the negative element that assails Godrsquos cov-

enant partner Second according to Barth Reformed orthodoxy tends to

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 14: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1445

Introduction 10486261048633

answer the lapsarian problem apart from Christ as if the freely electing God

were above and behind thus detached from the God self-revealed in Christ

(though this has been one tendency in Reformed orthodoxy this is notalways the casemdashsee chapters one and two) Tird Reformed orthodoxy

tends to explain the cause and origin of evil in terms of divine sovereignty

and purpose but for Barth the reality of what he later came to call ldquonoth-

ingnessrdquo (das Nichtige) is absurd and unexplainable As Barth sees it noth-

ingness is understoodmdashand thus not understoodmdashas such only in light of

Christrsquos triumph over it from and to all eternity

R983141983137983155983155983141983155983155983145983150983143 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150 P983151983155983145983156983145983151983150

Te first and shorter part of my twofold thesis in this book is that despite

Barthrsquos avowedly ldquopurified supralapsarianrdquo conviction his mature formu-

lation of the doctrine of election is in fact a dialectical combination of both

lapsarian positions As far as the object of election and the order of divine

decrees are concerned Barth may be described as basically infralapsarian

But how is this important for a helpful interpretation of Barth Many inthe guild of Barth studies would be tempted to think that what is important

is to understand what the theologian means when he calls himself a supra-

lapsarian and why he rejects what he calls infralapsarianism and whether

his definitions are in accordance with seventeenth-century usage is insig-

nificant rue enough it is important to ask why Barth calls himself a su-

pralapsarianmdashand I shall surely do that However as I have argued re-

assessing Barthrsquos lapsarian position in light of the original Lapsarian

Controversy would help us to place him in the broader context of the Re-

formed tradition Tis helps us not only gain deeper insights into his critical

interactions with the tradition but also compare him to other theologians

of the Reformed heritage in order to develop a more robust understanding

of his theology For instance how does Barthrsquos Christocentrism compare

with the common-grace theology of the Dutch supralapsarian Abraham

Kuyper and how might such comparison shed light on Barthrsquos famous

debate with Emil Brunner

In any case what I am arguing here is that to identify Barth as holding to

a complex and dialectical albeit basically infralapsarian view of the object

of election according to traditional Reformed definitions is not to interpret

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 15: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1545

1048627983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

him with preimposed categories failing to appreciate his intention in calling

himself a supralapsarian Rather this reassessment is helpful for a deeper

understanding of his theology within a broader historical contextBarthrsquos definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are at variance with

the original Lapsarian Controversy especially with regard to the notions of

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) He suggests that homo creabilis et

labilis refers to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election as sinful

and lost while homo creatus et lapsus refers to humanity actually created

and fallen However according to Reformed orthodoxy supra- and infra-lapsarian alike the obiectum praedestinationis is strictly within Godrsquos eternal

plan which is causally independent of actual events in the creaturely sphere

Reformed-orthodox supra- and infralapsarians alike believe that in pretem-

poral predestination God issued forth election and reprobation for the ul-

timate purpose of Godrsquos glory and so created the world to carry out this plan

Part one of this book sets these technical matters straight Chapter one

defines supra- and infralapsarianism in light of seventeenth-centuryReformed-orthodox texts and recent secondary literature on the Lapsarian

Controversy while chapter two discusses Barthrsquos definitions of supra- and

infralapsarianism showing that his complex and dialectical scheme is ac-

tually more in line with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism

As a note of explanation when I refer to Barthrsquos doctrine as ldquobasically

infralapsarianrdquo the reader should bear in mind that this term on its own

without careful qualification can be potentially unhelpful and misleading

First of all Barth has rejected some fundamental assumptions shared among

both classical supra- and infralapsarians so he cannot be simplistically iden-

tified with either camp I use the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo only

to refer to the basic thesis that the object of double predestination is homo

lapsus in contrast to the basic supralapsarian thesis that the object of double

predestination is unfallen

Even here the caveat must be issued that for Barth Christ is the first and

final object of election and fallen humankind is elected only in and with

Christ As the proper object of election Christ in himself is without sinmdashnot

even homo labilis or nondum lapsus but simply ldquohe who knew no sinrdquo

Terefore homo lapsus describes the human race elected in and with Christ

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 16: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1645

Introduction 1048627983089

and Christ ldquobecame sin for usrdquo only by imputation through participation (in

chapter eight I will counter the interpretation of Barth as having adopted a

ldquofallenness viewrdquo of Christrsquos human nature) In this way then Barthrsquos basi-cally infralapsarian view of the obiectum praedestinationis dialectically

carries a supralapsarian aspect as well

C983144983154983145983155983156983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 L983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149

Te terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism have also been applied

to Christology Supralapsarian Christology states that God would have

become incarnate regardless of humanityrsquos fall (eg Duns Scotus) and in-fralapsarianism contends that Godrsquos primary purpose behind the incar-

nation is to save humankind from sin (eg Anselm) Occasionally some

christological infralapsarians have ventured to state that God would not

have become incarnate if humankind had not fallen into sin (eg Aquinas)

but this is not generally characteristic of infralapsarians

In other words supralapsarian Christology contends that while the in-

carnation does take care of the sin problem ldquoGod had other deepermotives behind the incarnation than only the need for reconciliationrdquo9830891048626 By

contrast infralapsarian Christology without necessarily denying that God

could have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen (ie without

necessarily ruling out the possibility of incarnation regardless of sin) refuses

to claim to know that or why God would have done so According to in-

fralapsarian Christology then ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically

follows (inra aer) the divine will to allow sin (lapsus fall)rdquo while for su-

pralapsarian Christology ldquothe divine will to become incarnate logically pre-

cedes (supra before) the divine will to allow sinrdquo9830891048627 Note here that both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology are concerned with the logical order of Godrsquos

decisions to become incarnate and to confront sin

In what follows when I speak of the incarnation as having been ldquomade

necessaryrdquo by Godrsquos decision to confront sin (infra) or to enter into fel-

lowship with the creature (supra) a language that Barth himself adopts I

refer to a hypothetical necessity constituted by and contingent on Godrsquos will

12Edwin van Driel Incarnation Anyway Arguments or Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford Oxford

University Press 983090983088983088983096) 98309213Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 17: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1745

10486271048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

For both supra- and infralapsarian Christology the divine ordinance con-

cerning the logical relations between Godrsquos decisions to become incarnate

and to confront sin or enter into fellowship with the creature pertains toGodrsquos potentia ordinata (Godrsquos power as bound and limited by Godrsquos own

ordinances with reference to creaturely reality) rather than absoluta (the

absolute omnipotence of Godrsquos being in Godself ) When Barth speaks of the

ldquonecessityrdquo for God to become incarnate in order to conquer sin (he is not

shy to say that ldquoGod had to [become incarnate]rdquo) he is also referring to the

hypothetical necessity arising out of Godrsquos potentia ordinata (a term he ex-

plicitly uses) rather than an absolute necessity 9830891048628

In this language of necessity supralapsarian Christology claims that the in-

carnation was made necessary by a divine will other than Godrsquos purpose to

confront sin such as Godrsquos desire to enter into fellowship with Godrsquos own crea-

tures or Godrsquos decision to manifest Godrsquos own glory By contrast infralapsarian

Christology maintains that the incarnation was made necessary by Godrsquos de-

cision to save fallen creatures from sin From the Goumlttingen years on Barth

consistently maintained that it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin on behalf ofthe creature that made the incarnation necessary In Bruce McCormackrsquos words

ldquo[the] incarnation was necessary in Barthrsquos view because of the Fallrdquo983089983093

In this book I will show that Barthrsquos Christology became increasingly

infralapsarian through the successive phases of his theological development

although it always retained certain supralapsarian aspects As his theology

becomes increasingly Christocentric overall his doctrine of election also

becomes increasingly infralapsarian along with his Christology

It must be acknowledged that my basically infralapsarian reading of

Barthrsquos Christology is complexified by the ever-present claim in the Church

Dogmatics that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works

which surely reflects a strongly supralapsarian conviction Dialectically this

claim carries both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Notwithstanding the

obviously supralapsarian overtone in this statement for Barth the Word

who was in the beginning the Logos eternally incarnandus is revealed in the

concrete history of the incarnation as determined from the very beginning

14For example KD I1048625 9830921048625 E 98309198309515Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Critically Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon

10486259830979830971048629) 983091983094983088

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 18: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1845

Introduction 10486271048627

to be Reconciler between God and fallen sinners9830891048630 Tere has never been and

will never be a moment in the entire history of Jesus Christ who is the very

beginning of all Godrsquos ways and works in which he is not determined to bethe bearer of and victor over humankindrsquos sin In this way Barthrsquos mature

Christology is basically infralapsarian though it certainly carries a supra-

lapsarian aspect as well

rue enough aer 98308910486331048627983094 Barth would speak of the incarnation as primarily

an eternal event and of the Logos as eternally incarnandus which again

comes very close to supralapsarian Christology However whether a Chris-

tology is supra- or infralapsarian does not depend on the chronologicalorder of the events concerned traditionally the incarnation has almost

always been regarded as a temporal event (the few exceptions include

Origen the Actistetae Meister Eckhart and Menno Simons) and both supra-

and infralapsarian Christology would see the incarnation as chronologically

occurring post lapsum Te point of contention is whether Godrsquos will to

become incarnate presupposes Godrsquos will to overcome sin that is whether

it was Godrsquos decision to confront sin that made the incarnation necessary Inthis regard Barthrsquos mature Christology is basically infralapsarian because

the incarnation is the event in which humanityrsquos sin is posited in order to

occasion Christrsquos eternal triumph over it

Even though Barth is emphatic that Jesus Christ is the beginning of all

Godrsquos decisions it should be noted that he identifies the ldquoevent in which

the Word became fleshrdquo with that ldquoin which the Judge was Himself judged

on the cross of Golgothardquo9830891048631 Troughout his career Barth has never claimed

knowledge of an ldquoincarnation regardless of sinrdquo even though he does think

that ldquothe incarnation resolves a plight [of creation] logically independent of

sin namely the plight of transitoriness and dissolution into nonbeingrdquo9830891048632

While Barthrsquos view of the incarnation approximates Duns Scotusrsquos supra-

lapsarianism in this particular regard he has never ventured far enough to

make the essential supralapsarian claim that God would have become in-

carnate regardless of sin

16KD IV1048625 10486291048629 E 104862998309017Ibid 983091983097983092 E 983091104862998309618George Hunsinger Disruptive Grace Studies in the Teology o Karl Barth (Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 983090983088983088983088) 983090983088983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 19: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 1945

1048627983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 T983144983141983151983148983151983143983145983139983137983148 D983141983158983141983148983151983152983149983141983150983156

But who cares if Barth is supra- or infralapsarian in his Christology or in his

doctrine of election Te second and main part of my twofold thesis is that

Barthrsquos struggles with the lapsarian problem (ie questions about the sov-

ereign and holy Godrsquos dealings with humanityrsquos sin) through the successive

phases of his theology are in fact one important factor driving his theo-

logical development

o be sure Barth would frame the predestinarian-lapsarian problem

quite differently from Reformed orthodoxy hence his use of the term ldquopu-

rifiedrdquo to describe his own lapsarian position We shall see in chapters twosix and seven what this adjective means For now suffice it to say that Barth

would frame the lapsarian problem by asking how is sin to be understood

in light of Jesus Christ and of Godrsquos sovereignty in the act of election Aer

the Christocentric reorientation of the doctrine of election in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the

problem would be framed even more concretely how is the reality of sin to

be seen in light of Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

Part two of this book (chapters three to eight) traces the development ofBarthrsquos christological and predestinarian lapsarianism from its inception in

98308910486331048626983088 to its christological revision in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 and finally the highly actu-

alistic and ldquohistoricizedrdquo (as some have put itmdashI borrow this term with dis-

cretion) rendition of Christology and predestination in CD IV983089 (published

in 983089104863310486291048627)

In a nutshell my thesis in tracing the development of Barthrsquos lapsarian

thinking is that Christology and predestination started out as two looselyrelated doctrines in his theology but as he drew his doctrine of predes-

tination which was basically but inconsistently supralapsarian during

the first phase of the development closer to Christology which carried

infralapsarian tendencies at first and became basically infralapsarian in

the 98308910486331048626983088s his doctrine of predestination became more and more infra-

lapsarian and then in 98308910486331048627983094ndash98308910486339830921048626 the two doctrines merged and became

inseparable and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology

and predestination albeit still retaining certain supralapsarian charac-

teristics hen in the actualistic and historicized Christology developed

in the 98308910486331048629983088s he came even closer to christological and predestinarian

infralapsarianism

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 20: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2045

Introduction 10486271048629

Tis development up to 983089104863310486291048627 may be divided into five major phases

1 In Romans II (10486259830979830901048624ndash10486259830979830901048625) Barthrsquos Christology was moving in an in-

fralapsarian direction while his doctrine of election leaned toward su-

pralapsarianism though it already carried infralapsarian elements

2 In the Goumlttingen-Muumlnster period (10486259830979830901048625ndash10486259830979830911048624) Barthrsquos Christology

became basically infralapsarian while his doctrine of election began to

move toward infralapsarianism

3 In the Bonn years (10486259830979830911048624ndash1048625983097983091983093) during which Anselm and CD I1048625 were

written (as well as most of I983090 published in 1048625983097983091983096) Barth made no sub-

stantial revision to his theology (here I am in agreement with Bruce

McCormackrsquos insight against the ldquovon Balthasar thesisrdquo regarding the

centrality of Anselm to Barthrsquos theological development) but with

the Anselm book which gave Barth a more robust way of setting forth

the concept of revelation Christology and predestination both of which

were primarily formulated within the category of revelation became

more closely interwoven in CD I1048625 Meanwhile in CD I1048625 Barth became

more attentive to the presupposition of human sin in the divine act of

revelation in its actual form which motivated him to adopt a basically

infralapsarian orientation in the Christocentric doctrine of election in

the next phase of his development

4 In Gottes Gnadenwahl (10486259830979830911048630) and CD II983090 (1048625983097983091983097ndash10486259830971048628983090) the basically

infralapsarian Christology from previous phases of Barthrsquos development

dictated the basically infralapsarian orientation of his christological re-

vision of the doctrine of election in 10486259830979830911048630ndash10486259830971048628983090

5 In CD IV1048625 (10486259830979830931048625ndash1048625983097983093983091) Barth set forth a Christology that some have

labeled as ldquohistoricizedrdquo In ldquoTe Pride and Fall of Manrdquo (sect10486301048624) he draws

from his notion of nothingness in CD III983091 but develops it in a more

historical-actualistic direction identifying fallen humanity with Adamic

history Here his discussion of sin in terms of the Geschichte of the ldquopride

and fallrdquo of humankind consistently presupposes a basically infralap-

sarian Christology and continually refers to a basically infralapsarian

understanding of election

In these chapters I also show that Barth had adopted his mistaken defini-

tions of supra- and infralapsarianism as early as 98308910486331048626983088 and that the inadequate

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 21: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2145

1048627983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German historiography on Reformed orthodoxy by Heinrich Heppe and

others that Barth encountered while at Goumlttingen did little in helping to

clarify the terminology

G983151983140rsquo983155 G983154983137983139983145983151983157983155 R983141983152983154983151983138983137983156983145983151983150

E983148983141983139983156983145983151983150-983145983150-C983144983154983145983155983156 983137983155 A983157983142983144983141983138983157983150983143

o appreciate the basically infralapsarian orientation of Barthrsquos Christo-

centric doctrine of election is to grasp his concern to understand Godrsquos No

as a gracious never-capricious word in Christ for the definite and definitive

purpose of Godrsquos Yes For Barth reprobation is Godrsquos eternal negation ofhumanityrsquos sin that negates Godrsquos grace and this negation of negation in

Christ is for the purpose of election as the Aufebung of reprobation

As a note of explanation the German word Aufebung literally meaning

ldquoliing uprdquo and sometimes translated as ldquosublationrdquo or ldquosupersessionrdquo is a

Hegelian notion of dialectical progression in which the new abrogates or

supersedes the old in form but the rationality of the old is in one sense

preserved in the new which fulfills the purpose of the old Tis is sometimesunderstood as the logic of the ldquonegation of negationrdquo According to Barthrsquos

Christocentric doctrine of election sin negates Godrsquos grace but the vi-

carious reprobation Christ suffers manifested in his death as the death of

death is the negation of negation and the purpose of the two negatives is

fulfilled as they are augehoben in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ

From 98308910486331048627983094 (Gottes Gnadenwahl ) onward Barth would describe Christ as

vicariously reprobated for the sin of all humankind so that all humankind

partaking of Christ may be elected in him therefore by and with him as he

is electing God and elected human Te vicarious reprobation Christ suf-

fered of which Christ is both the subject and the object is for Barth Godrsquos

eternal a priori (zum Vornherein) negation of humanityrsquos sin and this ne-

gation of negation is sublated in Godrsquos gracious election-in-Christ which

presupposes and in a sense preserves the rationality of divine reprobation

as manifested on Golgotha Barthrsquos understanding of election as the Christo-

centric Aufebung of fallen human history (the historical aspect of election-

in-Christ is especially emphasized in CD IV983089) and divine reprobation is

basically in line with infralapsarianism double predestination deals with the

element of sin and the human race elected in and with Christ is homo lapsus

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 22: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2245

Introduction 10486271048631

Again as a caveat this basically infralapsarian orientation must not be un-

derstood in a simple but in a dialectical manner Christ as the proper obi-

ectum praedestinationis who took on the sin of all humankind is without sinin himself

For Barth Godrsquos No is not the ldquocaprice of a tyrantrdquo arbitrarily deciding

from all eternity to send the reprobate to hell forever (to set the record

straight I do not think Barth is entirely fair to historic Reformed orthodoxy

when he thinks of it in these terms) Rather with his basically infralapsarian

formulation of election-in-Christ Barth portrays reprobation as a gracious

word of God against the sin that assails Godrsquos covenant partner a No inChrist negatively posited in order to be sublated for the sake of the Yes

which is Godrsquos gracious election of all humankind in Christo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 23: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2345

PART ONE

Reappraising Barthrsquos

Lapsarian Position

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 24: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2445

1

Supra- and Infralapsarianismin the Seventeenth Century

S983151983149983141 D983141983142983145983150983145983156983145983151983150983155

T983144983145983155 983139983144983137983152983156983141983154 983155983141983141983147983155 983156983151 983140983141983142983145983150983141 supra- and infralapsarianism in

accordance with seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy One aim of this

book is to challenge the simple perception of Barth as a supralapsarian an

assumption that to my knowledge has not yet been explicitly questioned

Te fact I would argue is that his lapsarian thinking through the successive

stages of his theological development has always been complex dialectically

comprising both supra- and infralapsarian aspects Barthrsquos mature Christo-

centric doctrine of election while carrying supralapsarian incentives may

be described as ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo according to the fundamental and

quintessential definitions this chapter will offer supralapsarianism is the

position that the object of Godrsquos electing grace is neutral unfallen humanity

while infralapsarianism contends that the object of divine election is Godrsquos

eternal conception of fallen humanity

I am aware that the label ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo can be unhelpful and

misleading if it is not carefully qualified in such a way that the complex and

dialectical nature of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking is well recognized I therefore

ask the reader to bear in mind that Barthrsquos lapsarian position differs from

traditional supra- and infralapsarianism in important ways such that it

defies any simple identification as either supra- or infralapsarian and thus

not to lose sight of the complexity of Barthrsquos lapsarian thinking when I use

the description ldquobasically infralapsarianrdquo

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 25: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2545

9830921048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

rue enough Barth in a detailed and insightful doctrinal-historical ex-

cursus on the Lapsarian Controversy of the seventeenth century in CD II1048626

explicitly sides with supralapsarianism983089 In fact as early as Romans II(written 98308910486331048626983088ndash98308910486331048626983089) he had already taken an avowedly supralapsarian posi-

tion1048626 However recent research has shown that his understanding of Re-

formed orthodoxy relies heavily on the somewhat inadequate works of

nineteenth-century German historiographers1048627 In particular Ryan

Glomsrud observes that Barthrsquos ldquorecoveryrdquo of seventeenth-century Re-

formed authors during his Goumlttingen years ldquowas synonymous with his dis-

covery of Heppe and a coterie of nineteenth-century historiographers of thetraditionrdquo1048628 It was not ldquoan entirely ad ontes eventrdquo in that ldquoBarth encoun-

tered Reformed orthodoxy almost exclusively in the texts of the nineteenth-

century historiographers and not in the primary sources themselvesrdquo983093

Although in his later years Barth had acquired and studied primary

texts from Francis urretin Petrus van Mastricht Gisbertus Voetius

Amandus Polanus and others his collection and knowledge of Reformed-

orthodox writers had hardly expanded beyond those mentioned in thesecondary literatures of Heinrich Heppe and other nineteenth-century

German historiographers At least this is the case in Barthrsquos excursus on

the Lapsarian Controversy in CD II1048626 sect10486271048627 where he explicitly states that

his discussions are based on the reports of Heppe and Alexander Schwei-

zer1048630 One primary source from the seventeenth century that Barth cites

extensively is Francis urretinrsquos Institutes o Elenctic Teology but as I

shall argue Barth missed some key passages in urretin and as a result

came to a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the latterrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism

By the time he was composing CD II1048626 Barth had begun to consult

primary sources including urretin and others and was even able to discern

1KD II983090 1048625983091983094-1048629983095 E 1048625983090983095-98309210486292Roumlmerbrie II 1048625983094983091 E 10486259830959830903

See Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth Between Pietism and Orthodoxy A Post-Enlightenment Res-sourcement of Classical Protestantismrdquo (DPhil thesis University of Oxford 983090983088983088983097)4Ryan Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo in Engaging with Barth ed David Gibson

and Daniel Strange (Nottingham Apollos 983090983088983088983096) 983096983097 Cf Bruce McCormack Karl Barthrsquos Criti-

cally Realistic Dialectical Teology (Oxford Clarendon 10486259830979830971048629) 983091983090983097-9830919830945Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 983096983094-9830969830956KD II983090 1048625983091983094 E 1048625983090983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 26: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048627

some of Heppersquos misrepresentations of primary texts1048631 However Barthrsquos un-

derstanding of Reformed orthodoxy in general and of the Lapsarian Con-

troversy in particular still depended heavily on nineteenth-century histori-ography Comparing Barthrsquos lapsarian excursus to Heppersquos Dogmatik for

instance reveals that the formerrsquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy

is little more than a selective summary of the latterrsquos quotations of primary

sources along with a few passages from Schweizer

Given such a case readers trying to learn about the Lapsarian Contro-

versy should exercise discernment when trying to steer through Barthrsquos oth-

erwise brilliant and insightful excursus on the historic debate Tis excursusis theologically dense and in a manner akin to his small book on Anselm

which ldquotells us more about Barth than it does about the eleventh-century

theologianrdquo1048632 the reader should bear in mind that its chief value lies in what

it tells us about his lapsarian thinking and the historical-theological reports

are secondary Aer all Barth is a dogmatician rather than a historical theo-

logian and technical imprecision in his historical-theological reports do not

diminish the worth of his lapsarian excursusWith regard to the historical-theological aspect of the excursus Barthrsquos ad-

mitted reliance on Heppe should signal a warning as Richard Muller cautions

that ldquoHeppersquos Reormed Dogmatics overlooks [the] development of genuine

prolegomena [in early Reformed orthodoxy] and presents from the outset a

somewhat distorted presentation of Reformed systemrdquo1048633 Carl rueman too

warns that ldquoHeppersquos ordering of topics arrangement of quotations and

running commentary on the whole served to make the result something of a

synthesis of Reformed Orthodoxy and the views of Heppe himselfrdquo9830891048624

o be fair as far as Heppersquos presentation of the Lapsarian Controversy is

concerned perhaps ldquoinadequaterdquo would be a more accurate description than

ldquodistortedrdquo since Heppe does little more than simply offer a mosaic of quota-

tions from selected primary sources without translating the Latin into

7Eg KD II983090 983096983091-983096983092 E 983095983095-983095983096 Cf Richard Muller Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids Baker

Academic 1048625983097983096983094) 9830978McCormack Dialectical Teology 9830929830909830969Richard Muller Post-Reormation Reormed Dogmatics vol 1048625 Prolegomena to Teology (Grand

Rapids Baker Academic 983090983088983088983091) 1048625104862998308810Carl rueman ldquoCalvin Barth and Reformed Teology Historical Prolegomenardquo in Calvin

Barth and Reormed Teology ed Neil MacDonald and Carl rueman (Eugene OR Wipf and

Stock 983090983088983088983096) 1048625983095

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 27: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2745

983092983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

German o demonstrate the case in the sections on the Lapsarian Contro-

versy in Heppersquos Dogmatik (1048631983089983092-9830891048629 10486321048627-1048633) the authorrsquos own explanations in

German constitute less than one-tenth of the text while the rest consists ofdirect quotations in Latin983089983089 Lacking in these sections are clear definitions

of the plenitude of confusing seventeenth-century scholastic terms in the

quotations and in reading these sections Barthrsquos understanding of the terms

homo creabilis et labilis (creatable and lapsable humanity) and homo creatus

et lapsus (created and fallen humanity) which are central to the definitions

of supra- and infralapsarianism is not entirely accurate Tat is Heppe does

not offer wrong definitions of the termsmdashhe simply does not define them insufficient detail What Barth in turn does is to read his own inaccurate defi-

nitions developed as early as Romans II (it is unclear how he got these defi-

nitions) into Heppersquos reports9830891048626

Additionally Barthrsquos complete omission of seventeenth-century Puritans

on the other side of the British Isles including major theologians like

Richard Sibbes Samuel Rutherford John Owen Tomas Goodwin and

others is an instance of the inadequacy of nineteenth-century German his-toriography on Reformed orthodoxy suggesting that Barthrsquos understanding

of the Lapsarian Controversy lacks at least one crucial piece of the puzzle

o be sure as far as the definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism are

concerned Continental and British Reformed-orthodox theologians were

at one accord However British Puritans tended to be more concise in their

wording while Continental Puritans tended to employ more scholastic ter-

minology and quodam-modo expressions One instance as we shall see is

Francis urretinrsquos use of the language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in explaining

the infralapsarian view of the object of election Tough the Swiss-Italian

Puritan is careful to qualify that this ldquoforeseeingrdquo quodam-modo is strictly

eternal and that the ldquoforeseenrdquo obiectum is by no means Godrsquos foresight of

actually created and fallen humanity in history the writings of the British

Puritans might well have made this matter much clearer for Barth

Meanwhile just as Barth might have understood urretinrsquos definitions of

supra- and infralapsarianism more accurately had he paid closer attention

11Heinrich Heppe Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Reormierten Kirche (Whitefish M Kessinger

9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983088983096-1048625983088 10486251048625983095-98309098309112We shall see how Barth defines supra- and infralapsarianism in chap 983090

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 28: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048629

to the fuller context and the qualifying details in Barthrsquos reading of Heppersquos

selection of primary texts Barth omits some important passages that might

have helped him to define supra- and infralapsarianism with greater ac-curacy (see chapter two)

In what follows I shall offer some basic definitions of supra- and infralap-

sarianism in light of primary sources and recent secondary literature defini-

tions that are not my own but are in line with the scholarly consensus in

Puritan studies On this basis I shall proceed to chapter two to discuss Barthrsquos

definitions of supra- and infralapsarianism and contend that he is in fact

more in line with the basic position of infralapsarianism than with that ofsupralapsarianism

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 S983144983137983154983141983140 A983155983155983157983149983152983156983145983151983150983155

Divine sovereignty and permission of sin As mentioned above Reformed-

orthodox supra- and infralapsarians share the same basic understanding of

divine predestination and humanityrsquos fall which is nicely summarized by

Calvinrsquos paraphrase of Augustine in explaining the origin of evilWe make most sound confession that God the Lord of all things who made

all things very good foreknew that evil would arise out of this good and also

knew that it contributed more to His glory to bring good out of evil than not

to allow evil at all so He ordained the life of men and angels so that in it He

might first show what freewill could do and then what the gi of His grace

and the judgment of His justice could do9830891048627

As if this Augustinian language does not sufficiently represent Godrsquossovereignty Calvin elsewhere stresses that humanityrsquos sin is ldquono mere

lsquopermissionrsquordquo on Godrsquos part9830891048628 Insisting on the unity and simplicity of

Godrsquos will he states that God ldquocreates light and darkness that he forms

good and bad that nothing evil happens that [God] himself has not

donerdquo983089983093 Agreeing that evil is in a sense permitted by God he qualifies that

God ldquodoes not unwillingly permit it but willingly nor would [God]

13John Calvin Concerning the Eternal Predestination o God trans J K S Reid (Philadelphia

Westminster 10486259830979830941048625) 983094983095 Here Calvin is paraphrasing chapter 1048625983088 of Augustine On Rebuke and

Grace14John Calvin Institutes o the Christian Religion ed John McNeil trans Ford Lewis Battles

(Philadelphia Westminster 1048625983097983094983088) 10486251048625983096104862515Ibid 10486251048625983096983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 29: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 2945

983092983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

being good allow evil to be done unless being also almighty he could

make good even out of evilrdquo9830891048630

By the late sixteenth century Reformed theologians had generally cometo agree that Adam fell into sin by an ldquoeffectively permissive decreerdquo of God

they generally agreed that in Godrsquos eternal counsels the element of human-

kindrsquos fall is in one sense foreseen (in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense as

summarized in the block quote above) and permitted by God though this

ldquoforesightrdquo as it were is strictly eternal and is by no means Godrsquos passive

consideration of humankindrsquos actual action in history For the Reformed

orthodox divine ldquoforesightrdquo of historical events is by no means a cause ef-ficient or teleological of any divine decree rather all events in the creaturely

sphere occurred by the execution of Godrsquos sovereign decrees alone which

are logically independent of (ie uncaused by) actual human actions

Tis quodam-modo language of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo adopted by Calvin in

the sixteenth century and the likes of urretin in the seventeenth century

can of course be misleading notwithstanding all the careful qualifications

that these theologians have attempted to make It is thus unsurprising thatthe Canons of Dort which as we shall see adopts an infralapsarian position

without repudiating supralapsarianism consistently avoids the language of

divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo in its positive doctrinal assertions and uses it only in

describing the Arminian position that it rejects One crucial shared as-

sumption among the Reformed supra- and infralapsarians alike is that none

of Godrsquos eternal decrees are based on Godrsquos passive consideration of any

event in historical actuality

On these shared assumptions a supralapsarianism began to emerge in

the late sixteenth century most notably advanced by Teodore Beza (98308910486299830891048633ndash

9830899830949830881048629) Proponents of this supralapsarianism asserted double predestination

irrespective of humanityrsquos sin while agreeing with infralapsarians who were

the majority among the Reformed that the God who permitted the fall is by

no means the author of sin Te English supralapsarian William Perkins

(983089104862910486291048632ndash9830899830949830881048626) for example denies that his position makes God culpable for

humanityrsquos sin contending that God ldquoplanted nothing in Adam whereby he

should fall into sin but le him to his own liberty not hindering his fall

16Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 30: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048631

when it mightrdquo9830891048631 At the Synod of Dort a confessional consensus was estab-

lished among the Reformed where it was agreed that Adamrsquos fall occurred

by an efficaciously permissive divine decree9830891048632

However how did the sovereign God allow something so alien to Godrsquos

holiness to come into existence In pursuing this question sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century Reformed-orthodox theologians attempted to for-

mulate logically rigorous answers

Diversity of opinions Brief taxonomy From the current analysis it can

be inferred that the Lapsarian Controversy was essentially a theodicy in-

quiry on the suppositions of Godrsquos holiness and sovereignty how are divinereprobation and permission of sin to be understood Supra- and infra-

lapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between Godrsquos

eternal decrees of double predestination creation and permission of the fall

aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compro-

mising Godrsquos sovereignty and holiness

Note that the terms supralapsarianism and inralapsarianism represent two

general opinions within Reformed orthodoxy but as has long been known andas John Feskorsquos studies have recently shown with greater historical precision

there is diversity within each of the two camps just as there are intermediate

views that attempt to reconcile them9830891048633 Fesko lists the following taxonomies

urretin identifies three different opinions those who ascend above the fall

(supra lapsum) and hence are supralapsarians those who descend below the

fall (inra lapsum) and others who stop in the fall (in lapsu) In his Con-

ference with Junius Arminius identifies three positions two supras man asto be created or man as created but unfallen and one infra man as created

and fallen Edward Leigh confirms Arminiusrsquos taxonomy and offers the

same man to be made man already made but not fallen and man

17William Perkins Works vol 983090 A reatise o the Manner and Order o Predestination and o the

Largeness o Gods Grace 9830941048625983097 Quoted in Mark Jones and Joel Beeke ldquoWilliam Perkins on Pre-

destinationrdquo in A Puritan Teology Doctrine or Lie (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage

Books 9830909830881048625983090) 1048625983090104862518See John Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo in Drawn into Controversie Reormed

Teological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism ed Michael

Haykin and Mark Jones (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 98309098308810486251048625)19John Fesko ldquoTe Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism Calvin and the Divinesrdquo in Te

Westminster Conession into the wenty-First Century ed Ligon Duncan (Fearn Scotland Men-

tor 9830909830889830881048629) 983090983092983095983095-10486299830901048629 Fesko ldquoLapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dortrdquo 983097983097-1048625983090983091

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 31: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3145

9830921048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

made and fallen Baxter also offers the same taxonomy If these theo-

logians are accurate then according to the compiled taxonomies there are at

least two kinds of infras and two kinds of supras10486261048624

My aim here is not to account for the details of the diversity but to arrive

at general and quintessential definitions that accurately describe supra- and

infralapsarianism respectively I will show that what unifies the supralap-

sarians is the essential position that the object of election is unfallen while

the infralapsarians at one accord contend that the object of election is fallen

Unity in diversity Eternality of the decrees Te point of contention be-

tween supra- and infralapsarianism is whether Godrsquos consideration of hu-manityrsquos sin is presupposed in double predestination (election and repro-

bation) Supra- and infralapsarians agree that humankindrsquos actual fall in

history was eternally decreed by God thus Adamrsquos sin was part of Godrsquos

eternal plan rather than a surprise to God

Te various supralapsarian (supra-lapsum above or before the fall) posi-

tions agree that Godrsquos eternal decree of humankindrsquos fall presupposes

election and reprobation By contrast the various infralapsarian (inra-lapsum below or aer the fall) positions at one accord contend that election

and reprobation presuppose the divine decree of the fall

Note that in referring to Godrsquos eternal decrees supra- and infralapsarians

alike have in mind not only an Augustinian understanding of timelessness

but also a Boethian notion of successionlessness and simultaneity Louis

Berkhof despite inadequacies in his reports and analyses puts it well ldquoTe

divine decree is eternal in the sense that it lies entirely in eternity Te decree partakes of the simultaneousness and the successionlessness of the eternalrdquo1048626983089

Tus in both supra- and infralapsarianism ldquothe order in which the different

elements stand to each other may not be regarded as temporal but only

as logical Tere is a real chronological order in the events as effectuated but

not in the decrees respecting themrdquo10486261048626

20

John Fesko Te Teology o the Westminster Standards Historical Context and Teological Insights (Wheaton IL Crossway 9830909830881048625983092) 10486259830881048629 See also Richard Muller ldquoRevising the Predestination

Paradigm An Alternative to Supralapsarianism Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universal-

ismrdquo (lecture for the Mid-America Fall Lecture Series Mid-America Reformed Seminary Dyer

Indiana 983090983088983088983096)21Louis Berkhof Systematic Teology (Edinburgh Banner of ruth 10486259830971048629983096) 1048625983088983092 (emphasis added)22Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 32: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 9830921048633

In fact Heppe also notes (rather cursorily) that there is no sequentiality

to the decrees in Godrsquos mental processions10486261048627 Unfortunately Barth has not

picked up from his reading of Heppe this understanding of Reformed or-thodoxyrsquos view of the successionlessness and simultaneity of the divine de-

crees (Barthrsquos understanding of eternity involves a certain notion of suc-

cessionmdashthis pertains to another discussion)

While Berkhofrsquos Systematic Teology and Heppersquos Dogmatik are somewhat

inadequate in their accounts of the Lapsarian Controversy their comments

on the logical independence of the eternal decrees from the actual execu-

tions thereof accurately reflect the shared conviction of Reformed-orthodoxauthors from the seventeenth century Tis is evinced by a passage from

Richard Sibbesrsquos (983089104862910486311048631ndash98308998309410486271048629) preface to Paul Baynesrsquos (983089104862910486311048627ndash9830899830949830891048631) 983089983094983088983092 book

in which the latter contends for a rigorous supralapsarian position In this

passage Sibbes in friendly spirit lists three points of agreement among

supra- and infralapsarians of his time

Both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this First that there was an eternal

separation of men in Godrsquos purpose Secondly that this first decree of severingman to his ends is an act of sovereignty over his creature and altogether in-

dependent o anything in the creature as a cause of it sin oreseen cannot

be the cause because that was common to both [elect and reprobate] and

therefore could be no cause of severing Tirdly all agree in this that dam-

nation is an act of divine justice which supposeth demerit and therefore the

execution of Godrsquos decree is founded on sin10486261048628

wo points may be observed First according to Sibbes supra- and infralap-sarians of his time agree that double predestination is eternal Second for

supra- and infralapsarians alike the eternality of predestination implies that

it is by no means caused by anything in the creaturely realm nor is it logi-

cally dependent on the actual execution of any of Godrsquos decrees or even

Godrsquos foresight thereof (ldquosin foreseen cannot be the causerdquo)

Heppe shows that this is also the shared understanding among Conti-

nental Reformed-orthodox theologians ldquoPredestination does not firstappear temporally aer the Fall On the contrary it belongs to Godrsquos eternity

23Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983091-98309224Richard Sibbes ldquoo the Readerrdquo in Paul Baynes A Commentary Upon the First Chapter o the

Epistle to the Ephesians (London 10486259830941048625983096) (emphasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 33: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3345

1048629983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

to His essential beingmdashBucan (XXXVI 983089983089) lsquoTis decree does not begin

precisely aer men have been created or have begun to sin but before the

foundations of the world were laid from eternity that very thing was pur-posed by Godrsquordquo1048626983093 Heppe rightly concludes ldquoTus in no way may the ground

of election be sought in anything that is outside Godrdquo10486261048630 Tis is affirmed by

a quote from Amandus Polanus (9830891048629983094983089ndash983089983094983089983088) describing the Reformed po-

sition in general ldquoTe efficient impulsive cause on account of which our

eternal election was made is nothing outside God and accordingly not the

will of man not a good use of the grace we may have received from God not

our foreseen faith not menrsquos foreknown merits nor yet a prevision ofany of these things which was and is in Godrdquo10486261048631 Because of the eternality of

the divine decrees strictly defined in Reformed-orthodox terms the Swiss-

French divine Guliemus Bucanus (died 9830899830949830881048627) carefully distinguishes be-

tween ldquothe decree itself in Godrsquos mind to save and reject menrdquo and ldquothe ex-

ecution of progress of that actual eternal decree through mediate causesrdquo10486261048632

Patrick Gillespie (9830899830949830891048631ndash98308998309410486311048629) a Scottish Puritan who served as principal

of Glasgow University in 98308998309410486291048627ndash98308998309410486291048633 under Oliver Cromwellrsquos auspices alsoemphasizes the eternality of the divine decrees in his discourse on the cov-

enant of redemption ( pactum salutis the Reformed notion of an eternal

covenant between the persons of the rinity for the salvation of the elect)

Tis transaction having been from eternity it was a concluded bargain before

the creatures had a being Te Father and Son were not only free from all

natural necessity and outward compulsion but also from all hire allurement

or motive from any thing without their own will there was nothing in manno not oreseen that could allure or move far less hire the Father to give Christ

to engage him in this work [of redemption] nor Christ to engage his name in

our bond10486261048633

Gillespie makes clear here that since the pactum salutis which concerns

Godrsquos eternal plan to redeem fallen creatures is ldquofrom eternityrdquo it is com-

25

Heinrich Heppe Reormed Dogmatics ed Ernst Bizer trans G Tomson (London Wakeman9830909830881048625983088) 104862598309498309026Ibid 104862598309498309427Ibid28Ibid 10486251048629104862929Patrick Gillespie Te Ark o the Covenant Opened (London Parkhurst 1048625983094983095983095) 1048629983097 I am indebted

to Professor Fesko for pointing me to this work

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 34: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3445

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 1048629983089

pletely free and sovereign on Godrsquos part causally independent from any-

thing God foresaw in the creature Tis understanding of the pactum salutis

has been adopted by supralapsarians such as Gillespie and Tomas Goodwinas well as infralapsarians like John Owen10486271048624 We shall discuss the cases of

Goodwin and Owen anon

It would be helpful at this juncture to note that the notion of an intra-

trinitarian covenant was first developed by the Dutch infralapsarian Jo-

hannes Cocceius (9830899830949830881048627ndash983089983094983094983088) ldquoa much-maligned figurerdquo in ldquothe scholarship

on Reformed orthodoxyrdquo1048627983089 Readers of Barth will recall that he following

Herman Bavinck is deeply antagonistic toward many features of Cocceiusrsquostheology not least the notion of an intratrinitarian covenant that later came

to be called pactum salutis (though in the end Bavinck still retains the notion

of this pactum) Whether Barth and Bavinck are correct about Cocceius in

their attacks is tangential to this book and I shall leave this matter to experts

in the field of Puritan studies10486271048626

Te point to be noted here is the way Cocceius emphasizes the eter-

nality of Godrsquos decrees Tis was one of the theological axioms that set theReformed apart from the Socinians ldquowho asserted that Godrsquos decrees

differ from God realiter and lsquothat not all decrees are eternal but certain

ones are temporalrsquordquo10486271048627

Cocceius begins his refutation of this Socinian view by stating the

major premise of the inseparable unity of Godrsquos will and essence ldquoit is

superfluous to ask in what respect Godrsquos decrees differ from his essencerdquo10486271048628

On this premise he employs an argument reductio ad absurdum against

the Socinians ldquoIf any fresh will exists in God it exists in time herefore

the will of God will be subject to time therefore God himself will be

temporal not eternalrdquo1048627983093

30See Ryan McGraw Heavenly Directory rinitarian Piety Public Worship and a Reassessment o

John Owenrsquos Teology (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983092) 104862510486291048629-983094104862931Glomsrud ldquoKarl Barth as Historical Teologianrdquo 104862598308898309232Suffice it here to say that scholarship over the last decade has shown that Cocceiusrsquos theology

has been seriously misunderstood in the past Tis should caution against any attempt to un-derstand Reformed covenant theology through the lenses of Barthrsquos unoriginal criticisms of the

Dutch divine Ibid 10486259830911048625-983091983090 See also Willem Van Asselt Te Federal Teology o Johannes Coc-

ceius (852017852022983088852019ndash852017852022852022852025) trans Raymond A Blacketer (Leiden Brill 9830909830889830881048625)33Van Asselt Federal Teology 1048629983095 Van Asselt is quoting Cocceiusrsquos description of Socinianism34Ibid35Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 35: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3545

10486291048626 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

While modern theology might be more open to the idea of divine be-

coming or process inserting temporality into Godrsquos essence was horren-

dously unacceptable to the seventeenth-century mind Yet the Socinian viewof the temporality of some of the divine decrees would on the major premise

of the unity of Godrsquos decrees and essence lead to exactly such a conclusion

In this syllogistic reductio ad absurdum the eternality of the divine decrees

is shown to be axiomatic for Cocceius

It is because of the eternality of the decrees which as we saw are axi-

omatic to Reformed orthodoxy that Cocceius felt the need to develop the

notion of an eternal intratrinitarian covenant in addition to the temporalcovenants of works and of grace Some contemporary proponents of historic

Reformed theology share Barthrsquos opinion that the pactum salutis is a super-

fluous and speculative idea while others take this notion to be a significant

and praiseworthy feature of Reformed theology Whatever the case the

point to be noted here is how the notion of an intratrinitarian pact demon-

strates the classical Reformed understanding of the eternality of divine de-

crees Cocceius an infralapsarian developed this notion in order to ensurethat Godrsquos will which he takes to be strictly eternal is distinguished from

the historical ldquoexecutionrdquo of the decrees through the covenants of works and

of grace10486271048630 Te later doctrine of the pactum salutis developed on the basis of

Cocceiusrsquos covenant theology was adopted by many supralapsarians as well

as infralapsarians of the seventeenth century

In short the eternality of the divine decrees is an inviolable axiom in

Reformed orthodoxy Supra- and infralapsarians are completely at one

accord with regard to this axiom and they are always careful to emphasize

that Godrsquos eternal decisions are completely sovereign logically independent

of any historical event or human decision Tis is crucial for a correct un-

derstanding of the Lapsarian Controversy

S983157983152983154983137- 983137983150983140 I983150983142983154983137983148983137983152983155983137983154983145983137983150983145983155983149 D983141983142983145983150983141983140

Obiectum praedestinationis Central to the Lapsarian Controversy is the

question of the object of predestination (obiectum praedestinationis) the

watershed dividing supralapsarians from infralapsarians ldquoWhen the decrees

36Ibid 1048629983095-1048629983096

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 36: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3645

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048627

of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as

fallen or as unfallenrdquo10486271048631

While diverse arguments and schemes have been developed by bothcamps what unifies the infralapsarians is their central thesis that the object

of obiectum praedestinationis is created and fallen humanity (homo creatus

et lapsus) whereas supralapsarians at one accord contend that the obiectum

praedestinationis is unfallen humanity (variously referred to eg as homo

creabilis et labilis homo creatus sed nondum lapsus homo creandus et

lapsandus sed nondum lapsus)

Note that these terms refer to Godrsquos eternal conception of the object ofpredestination rather than humans in created actuality Tus the Swiss-

Italian Reformed-orthodox infralapsarian Francis urretin (98308998309410486261048627ndash98308998309410486321048631) says

that in the Lapsarian Controversy ldquoit is not inquired whether the creation

of man and the permission of the fall come under the decree of God (for it

is acknowledged on both sides that this as well as that was determined by

God) But the question is whether God in the sign of reason [in signo

rationis] is to be considered as having thought about the salvation and de-struction of men before he thought of their creation and fallrdquo10486271048632 Tis makes

clear that for supra- and infralapsarians alike the logical relations between

electionreprobation and creationfall are strictly within Godrsquos eternal

mental processions

Echoing the Canons of Dort in stating that divine election is not caused

teleologically or efficiently by historical actuality urretin says in the

heading of section eleven fourth topic of his celebrated Institutes under

the rubric ldquoTe Cause of Electionrdquo ldquoIs election made from the foresight of

faith or works or from the grace of God alone Te former we deny the

latter we affirmrdquo10486271048633

It is true that urretin occasionally uses the language of divine ldquofore-

seeingrdquo in setting forth his infralapsarian view of Godrsquos decree of Adamrsquos

fall (in fact this Augustinian language has been employed by supra- and

infralapsarians alike to explain Godrsquos permission of sin) in a way that may

37Loraine Boettner Te Reormed Doctrine o Predestination (Philadelphia PampR 1048625983097983091983090) 104862598309098309438Francis urretin Institutes o Elenctic Teology ed James Dennison Jr trans George Giger

(Phillipsburg NJ PampR 1048625983097983097983090) 104862598309198309298309039Ibid 104862598309110486291048629

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 37: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3745

1048629983092 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

cause readers unfamiliar with Reformed orthodoxy to confuse infralapsar-

ianism with Arminian or semi-Pelagian understandings of divine fore-

knowledge as the ground of election Yet note that when urretin speaks ofdivine foresight of the obiectum praedestinationis he is careful to point out

that ldquoalthough the object of predestination is determined to be fallen hu-

manity it does not follow that predestination is actually made in time

Fallen humanity is understood as to his known and foreseen being not as

to his real being Also the prescience of the fall and its permissive decree is

no less eternal than the predestination itselfrdquo10486281048624 Te second to last sentence

in this quote is important for clarifying what urretin does not mean by thelanguage of divine ldquoforeseeingrdquo it is not Godrsquos foresight of actually fallen

human beings in history (ldquonot as to his real beingrdquo) Rather according to

the last sentence in the quote Godrsquos foresight quodam-modo is strictly

within Godrsquos eternal predestination Tis shows that urretinrsquos notion

of homo lapsus as divine foresight as it were of sinful humanity does

not place the obiectum praedestinationis in temporal actuality Rather

homo lapsus is strictly Godrsquos eternal conception of the object of election-reprobation in Godrsquos mind

On that note English Puritan Stephen Charnock (98308998309410486261048632ndash9830899830941048632983088) explains

the Reformed-orthodox understanding of divine prescience which is shared

by supra- and infralapsarians

Godrsquos foreknowledge is not simply considered the cause of anything

Nothing is because God knows it but because God wills it either positively

or permissively God knows all things possible yet because God knowsthem they are not brought into actual existence but remain still only as

things possible the will is the immediate principle and the power the

immediate cause1048628983089

From this Reformed-orthodox principle it follows that for supra- and in-

fralapsarians alike Godrsquos prescience of humankindrsquos actual fall could not

have been the cause or ground of election-reprobation

40Ibid 1048625983091983092983097 ranslation revised Gigerrsquos translation is misleading rendering ldquonon sequitur

Praedestinationem demum factam in temporerdquo as ldquoit does not follow that predestination is made

only in timerdquo (urrettino Institutio Teologicae Elencticae 1048625983092983097983090983094)41Stephen Charnock Te Existence and Attributes o God (Grand Rapids Baker 1048625983097983097983094) 1048625983092983092983096 (em-

phasis added)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 38: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3845

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048629

If this is not clear enough the infralapsarian John Edwards (98308998309410486271048631ndash9830891048631983089983094)

makes it unmistakable that for infralapsarians just as supralapsarians ldquothe

decree of election is absolute in as much as rsquotis founded wholly on Godrsquos freewill and pleasure and not on any thing that was fore-seen in manrdquo 10486281048626

Strictly speaking then the infralapsarian homo lapsus does not even refer

to Godrsquos foresight of actually created and fallen humanity but only to Godrsquos

eternal conception of human beings as sinful and lost

With regard to the supralapsarian obiectum it is worth pointing out that

there are variations in terminology and understanding Te supralapsarian

Samuel Rutherford (983089983094983088983088[]ndash983089983094983094983089) for instance uses the future-passive par-ticiple to describe the obiectum as ldquohomo creandus [et lapsandus sed ]

nondum creatus [et lapsus]rdquo ldquocertain to be createdto fall but not-yet created

fallenrdquo10486281048627 In using this terminology Rutherford shares with other supralap-

sarians the conviction that God eternally conceives of unfallen humanity as

the obiectum praedestinationis

On the supralapsarian view election-reprobation is causally independent

of the decrees of creation and the fall Tat is (as most supralapsarians wouldhave it) in Godrsquos eternal plan election-reprobation is both the final and ef-

ficient cause (purpose and basis) of the subsequent decrees As Beza puts it

ldquoPredestination is nothing else than His will unto the fixed end of the

destination of either salvation or destruction and the subordinate means

unto these two endsrdquo10486281048628 Most supralapsarians would agree with Beza in con-

tending that God predestined some unto salvation and others unto de-

struction simply because God decided to do so1048628983093 On this view double pre-

destination is not a decree in which God conceives of humanity as sinful

God is sovereign and thus free to predestine humans for damnation even if

God does not conceive of them as guilty of sin and deserving punishment

Varying formulations of the ordo decretorum Related to the question

of the object of election is the question of logical precedence in Godrsquos eternal

decrees does the double decree of election-reprobation logically precede or

follow Godrsquos decrees to create the world and permit the fall

42John Edwards Veritas Redux (Andover UK Gale 9830909830881048625983088) 983095104862543Guy Richards ldquoSamuel Rutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianism Revealedrdquo Scottish Journal o Teology

1048629983097 (983090983088983088983094) 98309098309744Teodore Beza ractationum theologicarum (Geneva 10486251048629983096983090) 983091983092983088983090 (translation mine)45Beza ractationum (Geneva 10486251048629983095983088) 10486251048625983095983091-983095983092

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 39: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 3945

1048629983094 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

Te following logical order has oen been attributed to infralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 the decree to create the world and (all) men 1048626 the decree that

(all) men would fall 1048627 the election of some fallen men to salvation inChrist (and the reprobation of the others) 983092 the decree to redeem the elect

by the cross work of Christ 1048629 the decree to apply Christrsquos redemptive

benefits to the electrdquo10486281048630

By contrast the following ordo is oen used to describe supralapsari-

anism ldquo983089 Te election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the repro-

bation of the others) 1048626 Te decree to create the world and both kinds of

men 1048627 Te decree that all men would fall 983092 Te decree to redeem the electwho are now sinners by the cross work of Christ 1048629 Te decree to apply

Christrsquos redemptive benefits to these elect sinnersrdquo10486281048631

o present supra- and infralapsarianism with these ordines however is

somewhat simplistic First these are generalizations of the supra- and in-

fralapsarian ordines but there are variations to these orderings within both

camps10486281048632 For instance Heppe provides Bezarsquos schematic diagram of the ordo

which reveals that Heppersquos own five-step presentation would be quite anoversimplification if applied to Bezarsquos ordo10486281048633

Second while the five-step generalization would be an oversimplification

in the case of Beza it is oen an overcomplication in other cases Rutherford

for instance never developed a rigorous ordo but merely maintains that

ldquoGodrsquos electing of us cannot be aer the consideration of our creation and

fallrdquo9830931048624 Fesko comments ldquoWhile Rutherfordrsquos treatment resonates with su-

pralapsarianism an ordo decretorum [is not] statedrdquo983093983089

In the case of John Owen (983089983094983089983094ndash98308998309410486321048627) a supralapsarian in his earlier years

the ordo is usually presented in a subtle and narrative way rather than in a

five-step-point form Te following is an example from Te Death o Death

in the Death o Christ

46Robert Reymond A New Systematic Teology o the Christian Faith (Nashville Tomas Nelson

1048625983097983097983096) 98309298309698308847

Ibid 983092983096983096 Cf Boettner Reormed Doctrine 1048625983090983094 Heppe Dogmatik 10486251048625983088 Herman Bavinck Re- ormed Dogmatics vol 983090 God and Creation ed John Bolt trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Baker Academic 983090983088983088983092) 983091983096983090-98309698309148Reymond Systematic Teology 983092983096983096-98309698309749Heppe Dogmatik 1048625983088983097-104862598308850Richards ldquoRutherfordrsquos Supralapsarianismrdquo 98309098309751Fesko ldquoWestminster Confession and Lapsarianismrdquo 983092983097983097

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 40: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4045

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048631

God hold[s] the lump of mankind in his own power as the clay in the hand

of the potter determining to make some vessels unto honour and others

to dishonour and to this end suffer[s] them all to fall into sin and the guiltof condemnation whereby they became all liable to his wrath and curse his

purpose to save some of these doth not at all exempt or free them from the

common condition of the rest in respect of themselves and the truth of their

estate until some actual thing be accomplished for the bringing of them nigh

unto himself so that notwithstanding his eternal purpose his wrath in re-

spect of the effects abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out

itself in some distinguishing act of free grace9830931048626

It is only a little more than implicit here that Owen ascribes logical pri-

ority to the decree of election-reprobation over the decree to permit the

fall His main purpose in this treatise is to contend that Christ died only

for the elect

Te first indication of Owenrsquos conversion to infralapsarianism came in

98308998309410486291048627 in the publication of A Dissertation on Divine Justice where he takes up

the task to ldquodiscourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God and the

necessity of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048627 While

the earlier supralapsarian Owen asserted that the satisfaction of divine

justice is predicated on the double decree of election-reprobation the in-

fralapsarian Owen now contends that Godrsquos will to punish creatures is ldquoon

the supposition of the existence of sinrdquo9830931048628 Troughout the Dissertation

Owenrsquos concern is the satisfaction of Godrsquos punitive justice and his infra-

lapsarian conviction that election-reprobation presupposes homo lapsus as

the obiectum underlies his argumentation without being fully spelled out in

the form of an ordo983093983093

Another case is Tomas Goodwin (983089983094983088983088ndash9830899830941048632983088) a contemporary of Owen

Goodwinrsquos lapsarian position is quite complex On a cursory reading Mi-

chael Horton identifies Goodwin as an infralapsarian but Carl rueman has

shown that Goodwin is in fact a supralapsarian9830931048630 Goodwinrsquos formulation of

52

John Owen ldquoTe Death of Death in the Death of Christrdquo in Te Works o John Owen vol 1048625983088Te Death o Christ (Philadelphia Banner of ruth 10486259830979830971048625) 983090983095104862953John Owen ldquoA Dissertation on Divine Justicerdquo in Death o Christ 98309298309698309454Ibid 10486291048625983088 (emphasis added)55Ibid 1048629983097983094-98309498308898308856Mark Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth Te Christology o the Puritan Reormed Orthodox Teolo-

gian Tomas Goodwin (852017852022983088983088ndash852017852022852024983088) (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 9830909830881048625983088) 1048625983090983096 Cf

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 41: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4145

10486291048632 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

the ldquocovenant of redemptionrdquo ( pactum salutis)mdashldquothe eternal transactions

between the Father and the Sonrdquo in which ldquothe Son promised to act as a

surety for the elect and so lsquosatisfy his Father for all the Wrong [ ] done tohimrsquordquomdashis clearly ldquoconsidered in the context of man as fallenrdquo9830931048631 It is for this

reason that Horton took Goodwin to be an infralapsarian However there

is a distinction between election and the pactum salutis Mark Jones has

convincingly shown that Goodwin takes a supralapsarian position when it

comes to the doctrine of election9830931048632

With regard to the doctrine of election Goodwin distinguishes between

election and predestination in a nuanced way Election is the end of Godrsquoseternal decrees while predestination is the means toward the end Jones clarifies

Te end is either Godrsquos glory what Goodwin calls the ldquosupreme end of allrdquo or

the ldquoultimate endrdquo which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect

into Te latter endmdashthe ldquoultimate endrdquomdashhas in view the perfection of

Christrsquos elect Tis is what Goodwin has in mind when he affirms that the

decree regarding the end was not upon the consideration of the fall

However the means to the ldquoultimate endrdquo considers man as fallen9830931048633

In this way Goodwinrsquos supralapsarian doctrine of election which views the

object of election as unfallen but the object of predestination as fallen is to

be distinguished from what he calls ldquopure supralapsarianismrdquo which ldquotakes

into the means to [the ultimate] end the creation and the permission of the

fall and calls them means to bring about that intention or decree to that

ultimate end or glory specifiedrdquo10486301048624 Goodwin contends against ldquopure supra-

lapsarianismrdquo that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are notdirectly means unto the supreme end of election Rather Christrsquos soteric

Michael Horton ldquoTomas Goodwin and the Puritan Doctrine of Assurance Continuity and

Discontinuity in the Reformed radition 1048625983094983088983088ndash1048625983094983096983088rdquo (PhD diss Wycliffe Hall Oxford and

Coventry University 10486259830979830971048629) 983094983094 Carl rueman Te Claims o ruth John Owenrsquos rinitarian

Teology (Carlisle Paternoster 1048625983097983097983096) 104862598309198309657Jones Why Heaven Kissed Earth 104862598309098309658Mark Jones ldquoTomas Goodwinrsquos Christological Supralapsarianismrdquo in Jones and Beeke A Pu-

ritan Teology 1048625983092983096-1048629983097 Also see Tomas Goodwin A Discourse o Election in Te Works oTomas Goodwin DD (Grand Rapids Reformation Heritage Books 983090983088983088983094) 983097983097983092 By ldquoChristo-

logical Supralapsarianismrdquo Jones is mainly contending that Goodwinrsquos christological doctrine

of election is supralapsarian rather than describing a supralapsarian Christology though as

Jones points out Goodwinrsquos Christology is also supralapsarian59Jones ldquoChristological Supralapsarianismrdquo 10486251048629104862960Ibid

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 42: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4245

Supra- and Inralapsarianism in the Seventeenth Century 10486291048633

works are Godrsquos means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory

In Goodwinrsquos doctrine of election then the ordo is presented as a complex

scheme of means and endsGoodwin does not fundamentally disagree with those whom he calls

ldquopure supralapsariansrdquo Beza too distinguishes between the ends and means

of Godrsquos eternal decrees and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as

homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation1048630983089

Tough Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of

the means toward election his emphasis is on Christrsquos soteric works as well

With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Bezarsquos ordo humanity is considered fallen as these subor-

dinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of cre-

ation and the fall10486301048626

Another ldquopure supralapsarianrdquo is Johannes Maccovius (983089104862910486321048632ndash983089983094983092983092) whose

supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism were a subject of

controversy at the Synod of Dort He distinguishes between election unto

the ultimate end of eternal glory (electio ad finem) and election unto graceas the means unto that end (electio ad media) Maccoviusrsquos notion of election

unto grace is primarily concerned with Christrsquos soteric works though he

would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media For

Maccovius the ldquoobjectrdquo of electio ad media is ldquofallen human beingsrdquo10486301048627

However in electio ad finem Godrsquos eternal decree concerns ldquohumans before

they have done anything good or badrdquo10486301048628 Here we see that Maccoviusrsquos su-

pralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum

praedestinationis is homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali that

is unfallen humanity

Much more can be said about Goodwin and Maccovius My point here is

that their lapsarian thinking just as that of Rutherford and Owen is pri-

marily defined in terms of the object of election as fallen or unfallen rather

61

Beza ractationum 98309198309298308898309062Ibid 983092983088983092-104862963Haec electio [ad media] pro objecto habet hominen lapsum Johannes Maccovius De aeterna Dei

electione (Franeker 10486259830941048625983096) thesis 1048629 See Willem Van Asselt ldquoOn the Maccovius Affairrdquo in Revis-

iting the Synod o Dordt ed Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden Brill 983090983088983088983094) 98309098309198309664Ibid thesis 983096 Namque dum eadem agit de electione ad finem asserit Deum in aeterno decreto suo

eligisse homines antequam quidquam ecissent boni vel mali (translation mine)

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 43: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4345

983094983088 K983137983154983148 B983137983154983156983144rsquo983155 I983150983142983154983137 983148983137983152983155983137983154983145 983137983150 983144983141983151983148983151983143983161

than a rigorous or expressly listed ordo rerum decretarum While Beza holds

to a rigorous ordo what unifies him with other supralapsarians is not so

much his ordo which varies from one theologian to another but his con-tention that the object of election-reprobation is unfallen humanity

Yet another case is urretin whose arguments against supralapsarianism

shed light on the fundamental difference between the two lapsarian posi-

tions urretinrsquos definition of the two positions constitute two main parts in

the fourth topic of his Institutes he first deals with the question of the obi-

ectum and then with the question of the ordo While he acknowledges the

significance of the ordo his repudiation of supralapsarianism focuses on theobiectum since this is the most fundamental watershed between supra- and

infralapsarianism urretin advances four arguments against the supralap-

sarian thesis that ldquothe decree of [double] predestination should be made to

precede the decree of creation and the permission of the fallrdquo1048630983093 First if God

decides to punish humans whom God considers nonguilty then ldquothe first

act of Godrsquos will towards some of his creatures [would be] made to be an act

of hatredrdquo and since Godrsquos will corresponds to Godrsquos nature this wouldrender hatred essential to Godrsquos being10486301048630 Second the supralapsarian belief

that God decided to create humans ldquofor the purpose of illustrating his justice

in their damnationrdquo would ldquoindicate that he is neither perfectly good nor

perfectly wise and justrdquo10486301048631 Tird if the object of election is ldquoneither miserable

nor guilty yea not even conceived of as yet existingrdquo then Godrsquos mercy

in election would be quite meaningless10486301048632 Last the supralapsarian thesis that

election-reprobation is the final cause of the decree of the fall is really an-

other way of saying that God caused Adam to sin in order to reprobate some

of Godrsquos creatures which would render God a tyrant10486301048633

According to urretin the supra-infra debate hinges on one simple

question is the object of election fallen or unfallen10486311048624 Te question of the

ordo stems from the question of the obiectum if the object of election is

fallen it follows that election logically follows Godrsquos decree to permit the fall

65urretin Institutes 1048625983092104862598309666Ibid67Ibid68Ibid69Ibid70Ibid 9830919830921048625

Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 44: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4445

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545

Page 45: Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

8202019 Karl Barths Infralapsarian Theology By Shao Kai Tseng - EXCERPT

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullkarl-barths-infralapsarian-theology-by-shao-kai-tseng-excerpt 4545