A few weeks ago I taught a course in Secession theology to our seminary students in Grand Rapids. One of the lectures dealt with supra-and infralapsarianism. For many people these terms mean nothing, I'm afraid. Yet they played a key role in the debate between the Secession and Doleantie churches in the years leading up to and following the Union of 1892. That was the year when most of the congregations with roots in the Secession of 1834 joined the Doleantie (complaining) church­es that had followed Dr. Abraham Kuyper out of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1886. The new denomination took the name Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland. Not all Seceders went along with this merger, however. A few ministers and congregations decided to continue as Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken (Free Reformed Churches) because they had serious problems with many of the teachings of Kuyper and his followers.

Although everyone agreed that Kuyper was a great man, this did not mean he was right in everything he did or taught. The more discerning among the ministers and people increasing­ly felt uneasy with some of Kuyper's views, particularly in the area of doctrine.

Kuyper was a supralapsarian, while most of the Seceders were infralapsarian. This difference in basic viewpoint led to different interpretations of several key doctrines of salvation. It is important therefore that our readers know something about the issues that divided our Free Reformed forefathers and which still keep us apart from those Reformed churches which in varying degrees have undergone Doleantie influences.

What do these strange sounding terms mean: supra- and infralapsarianism? Supralapsarianism comes from the words "supra," which means "above" and "lapsus" meaning "fall." Similarly, infralapsarianism is derived from "infra" (below) and "lapsus" (fall.) The parties are so called in connection with the different ways they view the order of the divine decrees. The question at issue is where to place predestination in the sequence of God's decrees. Berkhof puts it this way: "The question is, whether in the plan of God the decrees of election and reprobation precede or follow the decrees to create the world and to permit the fall."

This, naturally, involves another question, namely, whether in the decree of predestination God regarded man as already fallen, or as an object still to be created and destined to fall. The resulting order in both cases is as follows:

The Supralapsarian Order⤒🔗

God first decreed to glorify Himself in the salvation of some and in the damnation of other men, who at this stage existed in His mind only as possibilities.

Next, God created man.

The Infralapsarian Order←⤒🔗

God first decreed to create man.

Next, He decreed to permit the fall of man.

Then He decreed to elect a certain number of the fallen and justly condemned race to eternal life and to pass the others by, consigning them to everlasting destruction for their sin. Finally, He decreed to provide a way of salvation for the elect.

The infralapsarian order is the one followed by all our creeds, especially the Canons of Dort and the Belgic Confession. The supralapsarian position, however, is the more logical order and helps to arrange things more systematically, but it tends to downplay the role of man as a responsible creature and moral agent.

Although many people ridicule the whole debate between supra and infra, the view one holds with regard to these seemingly scholastic fine points of doctrine, does influence and even determine one's views on many other vitally important doctrines. This certainly was the case with Dr. Kuyper and his opponents. Kuyper, being a supralapsarian with a vengeance, held views on such doctrines as the covenant of grace, justification, regeneration and baptism, which his opponents considered unscriptural.

Let me start with the covenant of grace. Kuyper believed that the covenant of grace was made with Christ representing the elect. Membership in the covenant is therefore restricted to the elect. The promises of the Gospel are consequently also only for the elect. For Kuyper, the covenant and election were practically the same thing. This led him to teach that the elect are also justified from eternity. If God chose His people in Christ, this implies that He also views them as justified in His Son, Kuyper taught. So already in eternity, before they were created, the elect were already viewed as righteous in God's sight, acquitted of any guilt and punishment, and given a title to eternal life.

For support of this view, Kuyper pointed to passages such as Revelation 13:8, where we read of "names written in the book of life," and of "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world." See, Kuyper says, this proves that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world — not that He would be slain in time. So also, it was not merely decided from eternity that the elect included in that sacrifice would be justified in time, but they were actually justified in eternity. That is why their names were written in the book of life.

But what about justification by faith? Does it not take place in time? Yes, Kuyper says, but that is not an actual justification, for that has already taken place in eternity. What then does jus­tification mean, as we read for example in Romans 5:1? "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." According to Kuyper, this means only that by faith we come to the realization of our eternal justification.

The men of the Secession disagreed with this completely. They did not deny that there is a sense in which one can speak of a justification from eternity, namely in the sense that there has been a bond between Christ and the elect from eternity and consequently also an imputa­tion of Christ's righteousness to them.

But this does not make an actual justification in time through faith superfluous or unnecessary. What has taken place in eternity in God's decree can only become reality when it actually takes place in time, Our Reformed fathers were concerned that with Kuyper's teaching justification would become something that a sinner need not experience and that would not have to involve actual faith.

Something similar happened with the doctrine of regeneration. Kuyper taught that children of believing parents should be viewed as already regenerated from birth. This presumptive regeneration doctrine caused a big storm in the churches and continues to be a controversial subject in Reformed circles. Kuyper came to this view because of his insistence that the covenant of grace was made only with the elect. The promises, therefore, can only be meant for the elect. God would never promise what He does not intend to give. Therefore, the elect will receive everything God promises. But not every baptized child turns out to be elect or gives evidence of being regenerated. True, says Kuyper, but we must presume this until the opposite shows in their life.

In connection with this view of immediate or mediate regeneration, Kuyper believed in immediate regeneration without the Word as instrument. Preaching, for him, was mainly nurture and not calling sinners to repentance. They cannot hear unless they are first regenerated. Preachers in this tradition address only those who possess life, that is, the seed of regeneration. They must be called to faith for they must believe that they are justified from eternity. In the order of salvation, according to the Kuyperian tradition, therefore, regeneration comes before calling to faith and repentance.

The danger is that many grow up in the church thinking all is well. They never experience the wrath of God, conviction of sin, or that they are lost. It is understandable, therefore, that many were disturbed when they understood the implications of Kuyper's teachings for church life. It affected the preaching and the pastoral work in the congregation.

Kuyper claimed that dead sinners cannot hear the Gospel, therefore the Spirit regenerates apart from the Word. The Word, therefore, is addressed to those who have been made alive by the Spirit so that they can receive the Word.

But Scripture shows that Christ called dead Lazarus to rise from the grave by the word of His power. John 5 tells us that the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God. Other pas­sages also teach that it is the Word, accompanied by the Spirit, that raises the dead from the darkness of sin (cf. James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23, 25; Canons of Dort, Ill, IV, 17).

Kuyper did preach the necessity of conversion, but by it he meant that the elect must live according to what they are presumed to be, that is, regenerate. They must live a life of conversion. Baptism is administered on the ground of subjective grace thought to be present in the elect child. Consequently, the clear implication is that if the child is not elect, baptism is an empty ceremony.

The Secession people believed that baptism is to be administered on the basis of the objective promises of God, which are addressed to all who are included in the covenant of grace. These promises, however, are fulfilled only in the way of faith and repentance.

Even many who did join the union had serious reservations about Kuyper's theology. A long struggle ensued which finally resulted in a compromise, known as the Conclusions of the Synod of Utrecht in1905. With reference to baptism this compromise states:

That according to the Confessions of our church the seed of the covenant by virtue of the promise of God is to be regarded as regenerated as sanctified in Christ, until the contrary is shown in their confession and conduct when they are reaching years of discretion; but that it is less correct to say that baptism is administered to the children of believers on the ground of supposed regeneration, since the ground for baptism is the command and the promise of God.

Our Free Reformed fathers have never agreed with the Conclusions of Utrecht. For them the words "less correct" left the door wide open for Kuyper's views as a legitimate alternative to the old Secession position on baptism and regeneration. As it turned out, Kuyper's view became the dominant one in the united churches and indeed, for a while it was declared to be the only official view!

Kuyper's teaching has set a stamp on the character of those in that tradition who follow his teachings. They are usually very sure of themselves and reject as sinful all questions or doubts about one's spiritual state. Faith to them means believing you are a child of God rather than casting your guilty soul upon the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved by Him.

So, what is the Free Reformed view on these issues? We believe that the Covenant of Grace represents the form in which God's promise of grace comes to man. This covenant was established in time rather than in eternity. It was established with Abraham and his seed and later with New Testament believers and their seed. It was not established with the elect, but with believers and their seed, and includes the elect as well as the reprobate. It included Isaac as well as Ishmael, Esau as well as Jacob. The essence of the covenant of grace is God's promise of grace or salvation in Christ. This promise, however, is realized only in the way of faith and repentance. These may rightly be called conditions of the covenant of grace, provided one realizes that they are not fulfilled in man's own strength but God's. He grants what He demands.

The covenant of redemption represents the eternal phase of the covenant of grace. It is a covenant or agreement between God the Father and God the Son regarding the number and identity of those chosen to salvation. The covenant of grace is the historical outworking of the covenant of redemption and concerns the way in which God brings His elect to salvation, namely by a Spirit-wrought faith in Christ and repentance towards God.

Baptism, therefore, should not be seen as a couch to recline on in (false) confidence that all is well, but rather as a pleading ground for asking the Lord to give what He has promised. "Lord, do as Thou hast said," David asked after the Lord had promised him that He would establish his throne forever (1 Chron. 17:23). This is essentially what every sinner will say as he lays hold of the promise that "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13).

Supra or infra — does it make a difference? Indeed it does. "Supra" views the church basically as a nursery where those thought to be already regenerated are nurtured in the faith. "Infra," by contrast, sees the church as a "salvation-institute", or "workshop" of the Holy Spirit, where lost sinners are saved and believers instructed and equipped for Christian service.

As Prof. Ten Hoor warned the Christian Reformed Church in 1905:

Supralapsarian preaching (as practiced by Kuyper and his disciples) is not addressed to spiritually dead sinners who are on the way to hell, but to regenerated children of God who are on the way to heaven, even if they do not realize this. The preacher, therefore, does not focus on the state of spiritual death and condemnation before God, nor on the depth and awfulness of man's misery, because those to whom he preaches are thought to be no longer in this state. The emphasis is on what we know and ought to do rather on what we are by nature and ought to be inwardly as children of God. Spiritual life with all its experiences and conditions is not dealt with in any depth. Some sermons are little more than exegetical treatises or doctrinal lectures, sound and valuable in their own right no doubt, but they do not touch the heart. It is not Gospel preaching whereby spiritual life is laid bare in all its depths and set in motion.

This warning, I'm afraid, went largely unheeded by the Christian Reformed Church and others who absorbed the Doleantie spirit in varying degrees. But have we always heeded it? Let us not think that we who trace our heritage more directly to the Secession of 1834 are immune to the dangers of covenantal automatism and Laodicean complacency. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches!" (Rev. 3:22).