List of Supralapsarians

Alphabetical by last name –

William Ames (1576-1633)

Louis Berkof desired to hold to both views (cf. Systematic Theology, pp.124-25).

Theodore Beza (1519-1605)

Johannes Bogerman (1576-1637) , Synod of Dort president

Thomas Bradwardine (1290 – 1349)

Johannes Braun (1628-1708)

Martin Bucer (1491 – 1551)

John Calvin (1509-1564)

Gordon Clark  (1902-1985)

Isaac Chauncy (1632-1712)

Vincent Cheung

Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669)

Alexander Comrie (1706–1774)

Tobias Crisp (1600-1643)

Giovanni Diodati (1576-1649)

Andreas Essenius (1618-1677)

David Engelsma

Francis Gomarus (1563-1641)

Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680)

Gottschalk of Orbais (808 – 867)

Gregory of Rimini (c. 1330-58)

Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)

G.H. Kersten

John Knox (1505-1572)

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644)

Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563)

Mathias Nethenus (1618-1686)

William Perkins (1558-1602)

Arthur Walkington Pink ( 1886 – 1952)

Amandus Polanus (1561-1610)

Peter Ramus  (1515-1572)

Robert Reymond (1932 – 2013) considered having a modified form

John W. Robbins (1949-2008)

Robert Rollock (1555-1598)

Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661)

John Collett Ryland (1723 – 1792)

Daniel Tilenus (1563 – 1633)

Robert Traill (1642-1716)

Augustus M. Toplady (1740–1778)

Robert Traill (1642-1716)

Theodore Tronchin (1582-1687) Beza’s son-in-law

Benedict Turretin (1588-1631) Francis Turretin’s Dad

William Twisse, (1578-1646)

Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562)

Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676)

Gerhardus Vos (1862-1949)

Antonius Walaeus (1573-1639)

William Whitaker (1548-1595)

Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590)

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)


– Please help add to this list-

Advertisements

48 Responses to “List of Supralapsarians”

  1. Dear Fellow Supra;
    Greetings.
    I just stumbled upon your post and blog.
    In my opinion, you should remove Berkhof from the list, he desires to hold to both views (cf. Systematic Theology, pp.124-25).
    Blessings,
    Theodore

  2. How about John Gill and Augustus M. Toplady.
    They would be on my list.
    Theodore

  3. Theodore,
    Thanks a lot for the comments. I may put what you said in brackets by Berkhof. On Gill, he is for sure not Supra. He wrote about that specifically in his complete works in a sermon I think it was. On our main site http://www.GospelDefense.com we have a link to his works. Sorry I don’t have the reference handy right now. As for Toplady, I will look into it. I think with Gill and people like him people automatically think they are Supra because they hold to Eternal Justification. That is my assumption. I welcome your comments anytime.

    Thanks,
    Scott Price

  4. Hi Scott;
    Greetings. You may be right, I was reviewing Gill on the decrees. I am not fully convinced of his approach to preterition but he does seem to make distinctions in the way of discussing causes. So for instance, Gill says, in terms of the judgement of the wicked, “The efficient cause is God.” (A Body of Divinity, p.196). In reference to the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, Gill says, “The moving, or impulsive cause of God’s making such a decree, by which he has rejected some of the race of Adam from his favour, is not sin, but the good pleasure of his will.” (A Body of Divinity.p. 197).

    This surely, makes him a High Calvinist, if not a supralapsarian per se.
    Blessings,
    Theodore.
    PS. I will check out the link.

  5. The link for Gill’s sermon against Supralapsarianism is
    http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_08.htm

    Scott

  6. Hugh McCann Says:

    Sean Gerety (godshammer.wordpress.com) & the late John Robbins of the Trinitarian Foundation?

  7. Scott Price Says:

    Hugh,
    Hi. On Robbins and Gentry are you asking or telling? I figure Robbins probably was but I don’t know much about Gentry. I’ll look into it unless you can direct me. I will look at the link you gave.

  8. Ken Gentry does not hold to either side of the debate, but rather considers it a non-issue.

  9. kimeradrummer Says:

    The list must include me: Claudio René González Ramírez (1984 – still alive)…God bless

  10. Mike Jeshurun Says:

    And me too: Mike Jeshurun ( 2010 still alive and contending for the Faith by His grace)God bless you!

  11. Did you forget John Calvin? BTW, I am an Anglican presbyter, and infra simply, like Emil Brunner, and many others,(not to forget most the Creeds). But still a Calvinist by definition and desire!

  12. No, Calvin was a superlapsarian. He always has biblical tensions, like those that can see that Calvin presents the Gospel to all, in his sermons. Thus John 3:16, etc. But, Christ died for the “sinful” cosmos, and therein the “elect”.

  13. PS..If you read Calvin’s Institutes, you will see clearly he was a superlap. I love Calvin, much more than “Calvinism” myself. Though I am certainly Calvinist and Augustinian. But I am always a “churchman” and certain biblicist…both Catholic & Reformed!

    • Hi Irishanglican,

      I appreciate your comment about Calvin was a supralapsarian. Could you help me out by pointing the references in Calvin`s institutes, which in your opinion, that Calvin held the supralapsarian position.

      Thanks.

      • i got that info from trusted friends. i will ask them and get back with you hopefully soon.

      • If you are still looking for Calvin’s reference in the Institutes where he teaches supralapsarianism it is 3.22.11, which is book three, chapter 2, seciton 11…

        “Now a word concerning the reprobate, with whom the apostle is at the same time there concerned. For as Jacob, deserving nothing by good works, is taken into grace, so Esau, as yet undefiled by any crime, is hated [Rom. 9:13]. If we turn our eyes to works, we wrong the apostle, as if he did not see what is quite clear to us! Now it is proved that he did not see it, since he specifically emphasizes the point that when as yet they had done nothing good or evil, one was chosen, the other rejected. This is to prove that the foundation of divine predestination is not in p 947 works. Then when he raised the objection, whether God is unjust, he does not make use of what would have been the surest and clearest defense of his righteousness: that God recompensed Esau according to his own evil intention. Instead, he contents himself with a different solution, that the reprobate are raised up to the end that through them God’s glory may be revealed. Finally, he adds the conclusion that “God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” [Rom. 9:18]. Do you see how Paul attributes both to God’s decision alone? If, then, we cannot determine a reason why he vouchsafes mercy to his own, except that it so pleases him, neither shall we have any reason for rejecting others, other than his will. For when it is said that God hardens or shows mercy to whom he wills, men are warned by this to seek no cause outside his will.”

        Calvin, J. (2011). Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2. (F. L. Battles, Trans., J. T. McNeill, Ed.) (Vol. 1, pp. 946–947). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

        BUT then in 3.23.3 Calvin claims that God is exercising justice on the reprobate because they are by nature guilty…

        “Let all the sons of Adam come forward; let them quarrel and argue with their Creator that they were by his eternal providence bound over before their begetting to everlasting calamity. What clamor can they raise against this defense when God, on the contrary, will call them to their account before him? If all are drawn p 951 from a corrupt mass, no wonder they are subject to condemnation! Let them not accuse God of injustice if they are destined by his eternal judgment to death, to which they feel—whether they will or not—that they are led by their own nature of itself. How perverse is their disposition to protest is apparent from the fact that they deliberately suppress the cause of condemnation, which they are compelled to recognize in themselves, in order to free themselves by blaming God. But though I should confess a hundred times that God is the author of it—which is very true—yet they do not promptly cleanse away the guilt that, engraved upon their consciences, repeatedly meets their eyes.”

        Calvin, J. (2011). Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2. (F. L. Battles, Trans., J. T. McNeill, Ed.) (Vol. 1, pp. 950–951). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

        So decide for yourself if Calvin us a supra!! The problem is that this topic was not being debated in his time.

        SDG,

        Jeff

    • I’d have to agree with you that Calvin is Supra, any inconsistencies
      that arise are as Rev Matthew Winzer,a superb Supralapsarian IMO has Stated over at the Puritan Board Forum, Once “simplicity” is recognised as a part of Calvin’s system of interpretation the main support of paradox is taken away from the “well meant offer” exegesis & Calvin’s view of accommodation is necessary for understanding his statements relative to the will of God. It is quite clear, when a broad range of statements are taken into account, that he was speaking in terms of means to an end, and not in terms of a desired end in itself. http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/well-meant-offer-gospel-calvin-will-s-god-81892/

  14. Scott,
    I needed to say also, that the whole issue was after Calvin’s time, but we can put Calvin in supra, if we are seeing his position as God totally sovereign.

  15. Robert Reymond a supralapsarian? I think he advocates the heresy of “common grace”.

  16. I was looking at the Louis Berkhof systematic text yesterday and saw that he had set up his systematic in the supralapsarian form. I do not know if this means he was or was not. I am sure if he was then what he had said at the end of the chapter might of meant that he was not dogmatic on the issue.
    Further one may have to check this out and see, but I have been told James R. White holds to a moderate form of Supralapsarianism.

  17. What about Gottschalk!

  18. Augustus Toplady should definitely be included. I don’t have a reference handy, because I just read through his 6 volumes on my Kindle which, because of the file conversion, doesn’t specify which volume is currently being read. But anyway, I read him several times argue reprobation from what can only be called a supralapsarian position.

  19. Do you know where everyone gets the idea that Pink was a supra? I have recently been reading his Sovereignty of God again and it appears that he is quite definitely not a supra (at least at this time); see pages, 72, 74, 86-88, 89 (of the watchmaker edition, scan his chapter on reprobation in other editions [other than the banner of truth which omits it]).

  20. Reblogged this on Feileadh Mor.

  21. You should read J.V. Fesko “Diversity within the Reformed Tradition” he shows how Calvin is supralapsarian.

    • I orginally did not have Calvin on the list but someone who was well-read told me he was. Do you think Calvin could be like Pink, in that, maybe he changed later to supra? I’ll ask around some more and need to find out what he believed when. Thanks.

      • After reading some of the material in the comments I stand corrected. I blame Banner of Truth and the other hypo-calvinists for making the issue so confusing. – jm

  22. First, Fesko’s point in the book is that later Reformed people actually watered down what Calvin said. They did this to keep the unity between groups within the reformed movement.
    I see it strange that Election is the last thing Calvin touches on in his institutes. I also think people do not understand Calvin because they don’t understand the covenant. With this said how Calvin writes his institutes it similar to how Paul writes his Romans letter and I would even say similar to how the Scripture presents things.
    Also we must understand the point in which Calvin writes. sometimes he does write in a temporal point of view but then other times he writes with the eternal view in mind.
    – Furthermore, a good thing to keep in mind is that if Calvin was not a supralapsarian/ high Calvinist I think it is strange that Beza was his successor and that Arminius even disagreed with Calvin.
    Coming from Calvin’s work of eternal predestination of God in Calvin’s Calvinism, Calvin says, “If we say that God in His eternal decrees had any respect to what would happen to each person after his creation we must necessarily confess that the discrimination between the elect and the reprobate was, in the Divine mind, antecedent to the Fall of man. Whence it will follow that the reprobate are not condemned because they were ruined in Adam, but because they were already devoted to destruction even before the Fall of Adam.” To this witless argument I reply, What wonder is it that Pighius should thus (to use his own expression) indiscriminately confound all things in reference to the deep judgments of God, when he knows not how to make the least distinction between remote and proximate Cause!”

    – Or even, “God therefore foreknew His own, not as foreseeing their merits – for they had none – but because he cast upon them an eye of mercy and favour, thus distinguishing them from others, and numbering them among His children, notwithstanding all their sin and unworthiness, according to that word of Paul, “Who maketh thee to differ?”

    – Later Calvin shows that God indeed elects and reprobates before the fall apart from good works or bad works. in the same work he says, “Pighius, however, still pushes on his violent opposition, alleging that if what I teach be true, that those whoo perish were ordained unto everlasting death by the eternal will of God, of which the reason is imperceptible to us, the persons so ordained are made worthy of everlasting death, NOT FOUND SO. I reply that three things are here to be considered: 1. that the eternal predestination of God, by which He decreed, before the Fall of Adam, what should take place in the whole human race and in every individual thereof, was unalterably fixed and determined. 2. That Adam himself, on account of his departure from God, was deservedly appointed to eternal death. 3. And lastly, that in the person of Adam, thus fallen and lost, his whole future offspring were also eternally condemned; but so eternally condemned that God deems worthy the honour of His adoption all those whom He freely chose out of that future offspring.”

    I hope these quotes help. There are other things too that would make one say Calvin is indeed a Supralapsarian. For instance Beza wrote a letter to Calvin over Romans 9. If there was an issue with Beza’s understanding who definitely came down on the Supralapsarian position why was there no critique by Calvin? This can be found in Theodore Beza, ‘Beza to Calvin, 29 July 1555,’ in Philip C. Holtrop, The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination, Vol. 1.2, p. 737 – 738

  23. Scott you should add Thomas Bradwardine (1290 – 1349), Gregory of Rimini (c. 1330-58) and Martin Bucer (1491 – 1551) to the list of Supralapsarian. If you want quotes to prove that these men are Supralapsarians I can present to you these quotes and perhaps even the works that they write.

    • Kirk, I’d like to read those quotes. Thanks.

      • One of the quotes by Thomas Bradwardine is “It is by no means clear that if Adam had not sinned no one would have been reprobated. It seems possible that even if Adam had not sinned, all his descendants would not necessarily have been made sinless and confirmed until the end. Rather they would have had the freedom to choose or accept good or evil. . . . Therefore, the sin of Adam is not the primary cause of reprobation, but rather, as said above, if Adam had not sinned, God would have ordained differently.” (This comes from THE CAUSE OF GOD) – the point here is that Bradwardine says that Reprobation and also even Election is apart from human works good or bad.

        Bradwardine also says, “Why do they not accuse God because He punishes innocent beast and baptized infants with no small physical pain? Indeed He gave up his own most innocent Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to a most painful, cruel, and tormenting punishment. But since God is omnipotent, completely free Lord of His whole creation, whose will alone is the most righteous law for all creation – if He should eternally punish the innocent, particularly sin he does it for the perfection of the universe, for the profit of others, and for the honor of God Himself, who would presume to dispute with Him to contradict Him, or ask, ‘Why do you do this?’ I firmly believe, no one! ‘Has the potter no right over the clay to make of the same lump one vessel for honor and another for menial use’?”

        Gregory of Rimini says, “No one is predestined on account of the good use of free will which God knew he would make, in whatever way his goodness might be reckoned . . . that no one is reprobated on account of the evil use of free will.” He later says, “everyone has been predestined or reprobated from eternity by God.”

        Also you might be able to read Leff, Gregory of Rimini, p. 204 which says Gregory places ‘the onus of reprobation squarely upon God’s free refusal to bestow His mercy.”

        So essentially so far these men held that Election/Reprobation were done apart from works. They held a strict view of Sovereignty. And held that mercy was the prerogative of God. They did not believe that Election/Reprobation came after the consideration of man’s falleness.

        Martin Bucer says that God hated Esau ‘before He had done any evil’

        He also brings about an assertion saying, “it seems unworthy of God to assign to hell persons who have not yet themselves done anything evil.” but then replies to this assertion by saying “Do we not realize that once we allow ourselves to decree unworthy of God what seems to us to be unworthy of him in matters whose why and wherefore we are not competent to penetrate, God will soon be committing innumerable sins against us at every moment?”

        A work that you can read is Martin Bucer’s “Martin Bucer.”

        Anyways hope this helps and hope that none would find my posting this to be junk and polluting the weblog.

  24. One of the quotes by Thomas Bradwardine is “It is by no means clear that if Adam had not sinned no one would have been reprobated. It seems possible that even if Adam had not sinned, all his descendants would not necessarily have been made sinless and confirmed until the end. Rather they would have had the freedom to choose or accept good or evil. . . . Therefore, the sin of Adam is not the primary cause of reprobation, but rather, as said above, if Adam had not sinned, God would have ordained differently.” (This comes from THE CAUSE OF GOD) – the point here is that Bradwardine says that Reprobation and also even Election is apart from human works good or bad.

    Bradwardine also says, “Why do they not accuse God because He punishes innocent beast and baptized infants with no small physical pain? Indeed He gave up his own most innocent Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to a most painful, cruel, and tormenting punishment. But since God is omnipotent, completely free Lord of His whole creation, whose will alone is the most righteous law for all creation – if He should eternally punish the innocent, particularly sin he does it for the perfection of the universe, for the profit of others, and for the honor of God Himself, who would presume to dispute with Him to contradict Him, or ask, ‘Why do you do this?’ I firmly believe, no one! ‘Has the potter no right over the clay to make of the same lump one vessel for honor and another for menial use’?”

    Gregory of Rimini says, “No one is predestined on account of the good use of free will which God knew he would make, in whatever way his goodness might be reckoned . . . that no one is reprobated on account of the evil use of free will.” He later says, “everyone has been predestined or reprobated from eternity by God.”

    Also you might be able to read Leff, Gregory of Rimini, p. 204 which says Gregory places ‘the onus of reprobation squarely upon God’s free refusal to bestow His mercy.”

    So essentially so far these men held that Election/Reprobation were done apart from works. They held a strict view of Sovereignty. And held that mercy was the prerogative of God. They did not believe that Election/Reprobation came after the consideration of man’s falleness.

    Martin Bucer says that God hated Esau ‘before He had done any evil’

    He also brings about an assertion saying, “it seems unworthy of God to assign to hell persons who have not yet themselves done anything evil.” but then replies to this assertion by saying “Do we not realize that once we allow ourselves to decree unworthy of God what seems to us to be unworthy of him in matters whose why and wherefore we are not competent to penetrate, God will soon be committing innumerable sins against us at every moment?”

    A work that you can read is Martin Bucer’s “Martin Bucer.”

    Anyways hope this helps and hope that none would find my posting this to be junk and polluting the weblog.

  25. Robert Rollock (1555-1598)
    Tobias Crisp (1600-1643).
    A few others you can look up as well I do not know much of.

    • My last comment seemed to have been deleted. I hope it was not perhaps maybe due to the spam? That is not my intention. But on facebook i asked about Johannes Braun and if he was a supralapsarian?

      He says, Some institute parts or acts of predestination from creation itself or from the fall of man; they are called sublapsarians [or infralapsarians] because they so arranged things as if creation and the fall preceded every act of predestination. Others start its actions at the actual end which God has set before Himself in the creation of man, namely at the manifestation of His glory through the exercise of His justice and mercy. For creation itself and the lapse of man were predestinated by God; therefore predestination precedes creation and the fall. Therefore the parts or acts of predestination should be ordered in this way. (1) God decreed to manifest His glory by manifesting His mercy and righteousness. (2) He decreed to create a creature endowed with reason and after His own image, to whom He could manifest His glory. (3) He decreed to create that creature liable to lapse. (4) He decreed to permit his lapse. Who does not see so far that the object of predestination is man creatable and liable to lapse? There follow the remaining acts of predestination, which look to the means and execution or actual exercise of justice and mercy; therefore (5) He decreed to free certain men already lapsed from lapse and misery, to leave others in that state. In this sense the object of predestination is homo lapsus [fallen man], not labilis [liable to fall]; for he who is freed from wretchedness or left in it must of course have already lapsed into wretchedness. Those who say that lapsed man is the object of predestination, in arranging the act of predestination begin with this fifth and last act, that God wishes to free some from wretchedness, to leave others in wretchedness; but this is bad, since the end precedes the execution in every intention. Since then the end is the first act in God’s intention and so the first act in predestination. Thus strictly speaking the object of predestination as regards the end homo creabilis et labilis [man creatable and liable to fall].”

      – Johannes Braun (1628-1708), Doctrina Foederum sive Systema Theologiae didacticae et elencticae, I.ii.9.24

  26. Does anyone know about Johanne Braun and perhaps Stephen Charnock? Johanne from a quote appears to be one, but I am not sure about Stephen Charnock.

  27. I’d like to suggest Rev. Matthew Winzer
    Australian Free Church, Victoria, Australia

    contributor & moderator on the Puritanboard Forum calls himself a:

    Christological supralapsarian, which means the order of the decrees serves the purpose of glorifying Christ as the Head of creation.
    I believe this puts the emphasis and focus where the Scripture places it.
    It also removes the difficulties connected with individual destiny of persons who are not yet considered as being created.

    http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/infra-supralapsarianism-82638/

  28. thank you all for the wonderful comments and new names for me to read. how ignorant we all…

  29. William Huntington
    Gilbert Bebee

  30. Jonathan Edwards. Many people wrongly assume that he is infra because he speaks about a decree of reprobation after the fall. But Edwards is strange. He holds to a general decree of reprobation before the fall, but a specific decree of reprobation after the fall. I would see this as falling under the Supralapsarian scheme rather than infra. Rutherford which you mention here is also interesting as he might hold to something similar to Edwards. He is Supralapsarian too, though he often use infralapsarian language but used it in a supralapsarian way.

  31. Daniel Contesse González Says:

    Only say: THANK YOU
    Elder at Presbyterian Church
    Concepción.
    Chile

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: