Chosen in Christ (Book Review)

 

Chosen in Christ: Revisiting the Contours of Predestination by Cornelis Venema (Reformed Exegetical Doctrinal Series, Christian Focus, Fearn, Ross-shire, 2019) 

It's been a while since I've done a book review on blog, despite having read a number of excellent Christian books in the last year. So, I thought it was high time to do one and the book I have just finished, is well worth reviewing and recommending.

The difficult doctrine of predestination or election has long been of particular interest to me and Cornelis Venema's book on the subject is an excellent contribution to this area of doctrine, often regarded as being at the heart of Reformed theology. As might be expected, Venema takes a Calvinist point of view and endorses unconditional election. This is reflected both in his positive presentations of his view and in his critiques of other approaches to election and predestination.

The book reads like a collection of essays on topics concerning predestination rather than a single cohesive treatise or argument on the subject. 

The first part of the book takes a biblical theological tour of the Bible's teaching on election and predestination across three chapters that look at, in turn, the doctrine of election in the Old Testament, the doctrine of election in the New Testament (excluding Paul) and then the doctrine of election in Paul's epistles. This material takes up about a third of the book.

The remaining chapters take a more historical theology perspective, with chapters on election and predestination in Augustine, Reformation theology, Arminian conditional election, Karl Barth's doctrine of election, and what Venema calls "Neo-Arminianism" - more commonly called Open Theism. As expected, Venema's treatment of Augustine and Reformed theology is positive, while his assessment of Arminianism, Barthianism and Open Theism are negative critiques.

The final chapter is entitled Concluding Theological and Pastoral Reflections where the author presents his own reflections on some common objections to the Reformed doctrine of predestination, such as regarding evangelism and the gospel offer.

Election and predestination are scarcely the simplest of Christian doctrines and any treatment of them is bound to be somewhat complex. Venema's book is no exception. In my view, this is at least a semi-technical treatment, aimed at theology students and pastors more than a general Christian readership, I think many people would find it difficult to work through this book. It offers an in depth treatment, particularly of the various deviations from the Reformed doctrine. I would not recommend it as a first read on this topic by any means. For that, I would suggest various other works, whether one of the many books on the Five Points of Calvinism, or A. W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God or James White's The Potter's Freedom. In addition, the relevant chapters of a good Reformed systematic theology, such as Berkhof, would be worth reading before turning to this book from Cornelis Venema. 

The work is valuable for a more in-depth study of the subject, particularly as I said, for the historical analysis and context.

Supralapsarian Theologians

Although the minority view among Calvinists, the list of theologians who are supralapsarian with respect to the logical order of God's decrees (or more accurately, the order of the elements in God's single eternal decree) is an impressive one. The following people have been identified (or call themselves) supralapsarians:

• Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562)
  
• John Knox (1505-1572) 
• Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590)
• Theodore Beza (1519-1605)
• William Whitaker (1548-1595) 
• William Perkins (1558-1602)
  
•  Franciscus Gomarus (1563-1641)
• William Ames (1576-1633)
  
• Johannes Bogerman (1576-1637) - president of the Synod of Dort.
  
• William Twisse (1578-1646) - prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly
  
• Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676)
  
• Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) 
• Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661)
  
• Alexander Comrie (1706-1774) 
• Augustus M. Toplady (1740-1778)
  
• Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)
• Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949)
• G. H. Kersten (1882-1948)
• Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952)
  
• Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)
• Gordon H. Clark (1902-1985)
• Robert L. Reymond (1932-2013)
  

It is debatable whether the first generation of Reformers, Martin Luther (1483-1546), Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) and John Calvin (1509-1564) should also be regarded as supralapsarians., but a good case could be made that they were, along with their contemporaries such as Vermigli, Knox, Zanchius and Beza.

Infralapsarianism Considered

Having previously provided some links to supralapsarian resources online, it only seems right to bring together some resources on the more common Reformed view of predestination, known as infralapsarianism.

Essentially, infralapsarianism is the view that the decree to elect some for salvation and reject others for salvation comes logically after the decision to permit humanity's fall into sin. Hence the term—infra (below, beneath or after) and lapsus (the fall).

This is by far the more common view among Reformed theologians, with some estimating that historically around 5% of Calvinists have been supralapsarians and 95% infralapsarians.

As with some other issues, it is difficult to neatly class John Calvin himself as either definitively infralapsarian or supralapsarian. The dispute among Reformed theologians that gave rise to these terms happened a generation or two after Calvin's death. However, at least in some passages, Calvin seems to view election as being from fallen mankind, which tends towards the infralapsarian view.

Likewise, some theologians seem to reject both infra- and supra- views, most notably Herman Bavinck, while Robert Lewis Dabney objected that the question had even been raised in theology. In the modern day, people like John Frame seem to reject having to choose between either option.

Others, such as Louis Berkhof and Robert Letham, do not decisively come down for infralapsarianism, seeing some logic to the supralapsarian stance, though they do not affirm it, they at least show some sympathy towards the other viewpoint.

The Canons of Dort are infralapsarian in their teaching. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms likewise tend towards the infrapsarianism held to by most of the Westminster divines, while being carefully enough worded that the supralapsarians in the Assembly could also support the chosen wording as far as it goes.

Some useful materials on infralapsarianism include the following:

"Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism" by Loraine Boetter: https://covenant-presbyterian.blogspot.com/2024/10/supralapsarian-links.html

"Divine Decrees" by Sam Storms: https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/divine-decrees  

"Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Barry Cooper: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/supralapsarianism-and-infralapsarianism 

 "Predestination and the Divine Decree" by Robert Letham: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/predestination-divine-decree/

 "Theological Primer: Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Kevin DeYoung: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/theological-primer-supralapsarianism-and-infralapsarianism/ 

 "Notes on Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Phillip R. Johnson: http://www.romans45.org/articles/sup_infr.htm 

Personally, I favour a modified supralapsarian view. The standard infralapsarian view is correct insofar as it goes. I just rhink there is more interconnectedness in the internal workings of God's decree than infralapsarianism usually allows for. Infralapsarianism has a decision to create, then (logically, not chronologically) a decision to permit the fall, neither of which's purpose can be explained before a third decision to elect and reprobate. I believe that behind these is an overarching purpose which these elements of the decree serve, namely for God to glorify himself in Christ, in all things, through having a covenant people to glorify and enjoy him forever in love, friendship and fellowship with him. This primary purpose is alluded to in Ephesians 1:5: "he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."

And this purpose or counsel of God ultimately is to the praise of his own glory. As Scripture describes God's purpose " The purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory" (Ephesians 1:11-12) and "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever" (Romans 11:36).  

Supralapsarian Links

The following is a list of links to supralapsarian resources online. It should not be presumed that I agree either with the contents of these links, far less with other things these authors may have written, but I think they are useful in seeing what supralapsarians really believe. My own views are what I term a kind of "modified supralapsarianism" as outlined here which seeks to take into account some of the infralapsarian criticisms of standard supralapsarianism.

"Supralapsarianism" by Bernard Woudenberg: https://sb.rfpa.org/supralapsarianism/

"Suprlapsarianism is not a dirty word": https://www.apostolictheology.org/2013/01/supralapsarianism-its-not-dirty-word.html 

"Why Is Supralapsarianism The Correct View": https://www.baptists.net/history/2022/08/21-bible-doctrine-why-is-supralapsarianism-the-correct-view/ 

"Why Is Supralapsarianism An Important Issue?": https://www.baptists.net/history/2022/08/22-bible-doctrine-why-is-supralapsarianism-an-important-issue/

 "Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Herman Bavinck: https://www.the-highway.com/Bavinck_predestination2.html. Note that Bavinck gives pros and cons for each view and ultimately rejects both attempts to put the decrees in any order as all are eternal.

"Did God Foreordain Evil and Evil Doers?" by Al Baker: https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2010/did-god-foreordain-evil-and-evil-doers/

"Super Supralapsarianism" by Al Baker: https://banneroftruth.org/uk/resources/articles/2010/super-supralapsarianism/

"Supralapsarianism Preferable" by Herman Hoeksema: https://cprc.co.uk/articles/supralapsarianism/ 

"Supralapsarianism and Its Practical Implications" by Ward Fenley: https://www.pristinegrace.org/article.php?id=768 

"Supralapsarianism" by Vincent Cheung: https://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/05/11/supralapsarianism/ 

"The Counsel of God (11): Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Herman Veldman: https://sb.rfpa.org/the-counsel-of-god-11-supralapsarianism-and-infralapsarianism/

A List of Supralapsarians: https://www.semperreformanda.com/theology/eschatology/list-of-supralapsarians-by-supralapsarian/

These links were working at the time this post was published. 

Modified Supralapsarianism

I have recently been thinking about the order of God's decrees and after much thought, I have decided that the correct view is probably what I would term a modified form of supralapsarianism. Though infralapsarianism is certainly the view taught in the Reformed confessions, such as the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession, it is also true that these confessions, particularly the Westminster Confession, certainly leave room for supralapsarianism as well, particularly as I will outline it in this post.  

As we will consider, there are significant problems with aspects of both the standard infralapsarian presentation and the standard supralapsarian view. As a result, I propose a modified view, which we will now discuss as a modified form of supralapsarianism which builds on the best points of both infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism.

It was only after forming this view independently that I came to understand that something very like the view presented here was held historically by some who identify as supralapsarians such as the Dutch theologian, Peter van Mastricht (as explained here by Geerhardus Vos).

The differences between the two views should not be overemphasised anyway. Both infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism agree that the creation, fall, election and reprobation are all included within God's all-encompassing decree. The only differences concern the logical order of the elements within the eternal decree, not a chronology as such. In both views, all the parts of the decree—creation, fall, election and reprobation—are eternal.

The view advocated here suggests a pre- or supralapsarian aspect to God's decree, a discrimination in the mind of God, so to speak, between one group who would ultimately be saved and another who would ultimately be lost, prior to the logical decision to create or permit the fall, but this is combined with a post- or infralapsarian view of the election of individuals into the two groups, the elect for salvation in Christ and the preterition or rejection of individuals and the decision to punish them for their sins.

The standard infralapsarian order of the decrees (or of the logical moments with a all-encompassing decree) is as follows:

• Decree to create humanity 
• Decree to permit the fall 
• Decree to elect some of the fallen mass of humanity to salvation and decree to reprobate the remainder of humanity to condemnation 
• Decree to provide and accomplish salvation for the elect in Christ.
  

This order tracks the same order as the events play out in time and history beginning with creation then fall then election then salvation.

Though this is by far the most common presentation among Calvinists, it has significant problems, which we can list as follows:

1. The planning of God appears to follow exactly the same as the historical order plays out in time, but in planning a final goal the end point is decided first and then the steps to reach the end goal. A analogy would be a baker. He first decides to bake a cake and then assembles the ingredients, weighs them out, mixes them before putting the mixture in the oven to achieve the final aim. He does not take out ingredients and begin to mix them up and then finally decide to bake a cake!
   
2. What is the purpose of God in creation and permitting the fall if the decree of salvation only comes in after these two decisions have already been made? The normal infralapsarian order does not account for why God permitted the Fall to take place.
   
3. This order of decrees does not include the overarching purpose of all things being for the glory of the triune God in the display of his attributes of justice and grace.

The most common supralapsarian order of the decrees is as follows, and though this helps answer these questions, it is not without issues of its own difficulties: 

• Decree to provide and accomplish salvation for the elect in Christ.
• Decree to elect some for salvation and reprobate others to condemnation
• Decree to create the elect and the reprobate
• Decree to permit the fall

This answers the problems of infralapsarian. Here creation and fall serve a prior and higher purpose to have elect to save and reprobate to condemn which will bring God glory. Here the order is the reverse of the historical playing out of the decrees. This order ties in better with God’s primary concern to display his own glory and the final state of the elect and the non-elect is foremost in God’s mind. However, the traditional supralapsarian scheme also has its own significant problems.

1. If the decree to create comes after the decree of predestination of individuals, how can there be individuals to elect or reprobate if their creation has not even been contemplated. This would seem to be a significant problem. Yet if the separation of elect and non-elect only happens after contemplation of their creation, then their creation must have been contemplated with another purpose in mind which seems contrary to the spirit of supralapsarianism.
   
2. The supralapsarian view has more difficulty avoiding charges of God creating people and then predestining them to damnation without first regarding them as sinful, indeed without any reference to sin, potentially making the purpose of God unjust, which cannot be.
3. The supralapsarian view tends to see creation merely as a means to an end, rather than having any independent divine purpose for the display of the divine glory in its own right.
   
4. The supralapsarian view posits a divide between elect and reprobate individuals that precedes and overrides any other consideration. This can make it difficult for supralapsarians to account for biblical passages that speak of God's love and goodness for all shown in common grace and mercy.
5. The supralapsarian view can sometimes be presented in a way that lacks nuance in presenting the elect as the recipients only of grace and the reprobate the recipients only of wrath and justice, when the reality of the divine decree is that the elect were children of wrath as much as the non-elect prior to their conversion and the non-elect remain recipients of divine benevolence and goodness despite their rejection for salvation.
   

A modfied supralapsarian position, which seeks to take the best of both traditional positions, could be set forth as follows: 

• Decree to glorify the triune God himself in the display of all his attributes and in the works of all persons of the Trinity in creaton, providence, the fall, salvation and condemnation.
• Decree to have two groups of people, one in covenant with him through Christ and the Holy Spirit and receiving salvation and the other outside of covenant with him and receiving condemnation and punishment (but without any individuals in either group). 
• Decree to create the world and humanity in God’s image – displaying God’s greatness, wisdom, glory, imagination, creativity, etc.
• Decree to permit the fall. 
• Decree to elect some individuals of the fallen mass of humanity to salvation and decree to reprobate the remainder of the individuals of humanity to condemnation (this part of the decree does concern individuals viewed as sinners)
• Decree to provide and accomplish salvation for the elect in Christ.

It will be noted that the additional two points helps explain the purpose of the creation and the permission of the fall, while the remaining points follow the traditional infralapsarian order, all to God's primary purpose of glorifying himself and sharing the life of the Godhead with his image bearers in covenant with himself in supralapsarian manner. 

  

The key distinction in this scheme lies between God decreeing to have a saved covenant people and a non-saved group outside the covenant and this distinction and part of the decree is made prior to contemplating the fall and God determining which individuals will be elected for salvation, leaving others to be reprobated and condemned (which occurs only after the individuals are considered as fallen and sinful individuals). We could call this scheme a kind of hybrid with a kind of supralapsarian corporate election and reprobation, but a logically subsequent infralapsarian individual election of individuals and the reprobation only of sinful individuals. For this reason, I believe this remains a modified form on supralapsarianism, though it could equally be viewed as a modified form of infralapsarianism. It is distinct from either traditional presentation of the two views after all.

The fundamental objections to infralapsarianism are answered in this scheme without falling into the harshness of the traditional supralapsarian scheme because at the point individuals are elected or reprobated they are viewed in the divine mind as sinners, undeserving of salvation and deserving damnation:

1. That creation and the fall do serve a prior purpose of God in glorifying himself, displaying certain of his attributes and bringing about individuals to be elected and reprobated.
   
2. The order of events in time occur to bring about prior determined aspects of the decree (to have a covenant people in Christ and a non-covenant remainder of humanity to God's own glory)
3. This view is clear that any individual is only elected to salvation or passed by and condemned when viewed as a sinner, not merely a creature.
4. This view makes it clear that although there is double predestination, there is no equal ultimacy between the choosing of the elect and the reprobation of the non-elect. Election is a positive act; reprobation is a passive passing by and only an active judicial condemnation for sin.
5. Although this view sees a distinction between two groups from the first, there is not reason to reject a universal love and common grace to all humanity under this scheme, nor does it affect the free offer of the gospel being made to all.
   

This view recognises that what the ultimate goal is first in logical order and then the steps to reach the goal follow in the plan in historical order. It recognises that in the planning, the planner must also consider what the correct historical order of events needs to be to reach the goal.

It will be interesting to see what other Reformed theologians have made of this issue where they are infralapsarian but seek to address some of the objections to this view. I know that the great Dutch Reformed theologian, Herman Bavinck, rejected both supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, believing that God's decree is one organic whole. I would agree with this to a point, except that it seems necessary to account within the single decree for the logical decisions God must have made. As with the previous cake analogy, it is difficult to see how God would not first choose the ends he wants and then the means to achieve those ends (this is the essence of the supralapsarian view of course), yet the cake recipe also requires the steps to be ordered in the correct way that leads from assembling and weighting ingredients to the final cake. Most importantly, this view is clear that God elects and rejects actual fallen individual human beings, not just created human beings. 

Therefore, though sovereign, God cannot be regarded as unjust or arbitrary. His grace and mercy to the elect is truly grace and mercy shown to undeserving sinners and His justice and wrath to the reprobabte is truly justice and holy wrath shown to hell-deserving sinners. Thus the harsher aspects of supralapsarianism are avoided, but also the weakness of the traditional infralapsarian view which struggles to explain God's purpose in the creation and the permission of the fall.