1. 加爾文與清教徒神學
中華福音神學院 下學期

2. 墮落前後揀選論

3. 初步定義 墮落前揀選論：supralapsarianism（supra lapsum）
墮落後揀選論：infralapsarianism（infra lapsum）
首要：揀選對象（obiectum praedestinationis）
次要：旨意次序（ordo decretorum）
絕對權能（potentia absoluta）& 定旨權能（potentia ordinata）
分水嶺： “When the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallen?” （Loraine Boettner）

4. 改革宗神義論
“Given that God is absolutely good and sovereign, how was it that God decreed—even though permissively—humanity’s fall, and how was it that the Creator decreed to predestine some of God’s own creatures unto perdition?” (Tseng)
“On the suppositions of God’s holiness and sovereignty, how are divine reprobation and permission of sin to be understood? Supra- and infralapsarianism are two formulations of the logical relations between God’s eternal decrees of double predestination, creation, and permission of the fall, aimed at taking into account the reality of sin and evil without compromising God’s sovereignty and holiness.” (Tseng)

5. 墮落前後論：共同預設
上帝旨意的永恆性 奧古斯丁：無時間性（timelessness） 波伊修斯（Boethius）：無先後性（successionlessness） “…both [supra- and infralapsarians] agree in this: First, that there was an eternal separation of men in God’s purpose. Secondly, that this first decree of severing man to his ends, is an act of sovereignty over his creature, and altogether independent of anything in the creature, as a cause of it...; sin foreseen cannot be the cause, because that was common to both [elect and reprobate], and therefore could be no cause of severing. Thirdly, all agree in this, that damnation is an act of divine justice, which supposeth demerit; and therefore the execution of God’s decree is founded on sin...” (Richard Sibbes)

6. 墮落前後論：共同預設
“This decree does not begin precisely after men have been created or have begun to sin; but before the foundations of the world were laid, from eternity, that very thing was purposed by God.” (Guliemus Bucanus)
“The 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 men’s foreknown merits…; nor yet a prevision of any of these things, which was and is in God.” (Amandus Polanus)

7. 墮落前後論：共同預設
論及「救贖之約」（pactum salutis）：“This transaction having been from eternity, it was a concluded bargain before the creatures had a being… The 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 man, no not foreseen, 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 bond…” (Patrick Gillespie)

8. 墮落前後論：共同預設
Johannes Coccejus 駁蘇西尼派： “[Socinians] asserted that God’s decrees differ from God realiter and ‘that not all decrees are eternal, but certain ones are temporal.’” 大前提：“it is superfluous to ask in what respect God’s decrees differ from his essence.” 三段式反證（syllogistic reductio ad absurdum）：“If any fresh will exists in God, it exists in time. Therefore the will of God will be subject to time; therefore God himself will be temporal, not eternal.”

9. 墮落前後揀選論爭論 Lapsarian Controversy
Supra: obiectum praedestinationis = homo nondum lapsus （可以是homo creabilis et labilis, homo creatus sed nondum lapsus, homo creandus et lapsandus sed nondum lapsus, etc. ）
Infra: obiectum = homo creatus et lapsus

10. 墮落後揀選論：obiectum 注意：非在歷史上實際受造並墮落的人，而是上 帝永恆計畫中的人
“[in the Lapsarian Controversy] it 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 destruction of men before he thought of their creation and fall.” （Francis Turretin）

11. 墮落後揀選論：obiectum
“Is election made from the foresight of faith, or works; or from the grace of God alone? The former we deny; the latter we affirm.” (Turretin)
歐陸清教徒使用「foreseeing」一詞：Turretin 澄清 “although the object of predestination is determined to be fallen humanity, 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 itself.”

12. 墮落後揀選論：obiectum
英倫清教徒：「揀選的對象」與上帝的「預知」/「先見」 無關 “God’s foreknowledge is not, simply considered, the cause of anything… [N]othing is because God knows it, but because God wills it, either positively or permissively; God knows all things possible; yet, because God knows them 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 cause.” (Stephen Charnock) “The decree of election is absolute in as much as ’tis founded wholly on God’s free will and pleasure, and… not on any thing that was fore-seen in man.” (John Edwards)

13. 墮落前揀選論：obiectum
對 obiectum praedestinationis 的多元觀點 多數觀點： homo creabilis et labilis Samuel Rutherford: “homo creandus [et lapsandus sed]… nondum creatus [et lapsus]”
基本立場：object of predestination = unfallen human

14. Ordo rerum decretarum
一般學者形容墮落後揀選論的 ordo：“1. the decree to create the world and (all) men; 2. the decree that (all) men would fall; 3. the election of some fallen men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others); 4. the decree to redeem the elect by the cross work of Christ; 5. the decree to apply Christ’s redemptive benefits to the elect.” (Reymond)

15. Ordo rerum decretarum
一般學者形容墮落前揀選論的 ordo：“1. The election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others); 2. The decree to create the world and both kinds of men; 3. The decree that all men would fall; 4. The decree to redeem the elect, who are now sinners, by the cross work of Christ; 5. The decree to apply Christ’s redemptive benefits to these elect sinners.” (Reymond)

16. Ordo：雙方的多元立場 Theodore Beza 的 ordo 顯示以上五個步驟過於簡化
Rutherford 的 ordo：“God’s electing of us cannot be after the consideration of our creation and fall.” John Fesko: “While Rutherford’s treatment resonates with supralapsarianism…, an ordo decretorum [is not] stated.”

17. Ordo：雙方的多元立場
John Owen 早期的立場（敘事性的 ordo）： “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 guilt of 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 respect of the effects, abideth on them until that eternal purpose do make out itself in some distinguishing act of free grace.” (Death of Death)

18. Ordo：雙方的多元立場
John Owen 立場的改變： Dissertation on Divine Justice：“discourse and dispute on the vindicatory justice of God, and the necessity of its exercise, on the supposition of the existence of sin.” 上帝刑罰人的旨意 乃 “on the supposition of the existence of sin.”

19. Ordo：雙方的多元立場
John Fesko: “there are two basic considerations regarding lapsarianism: (1) the ordo decretorum… and (2) the object of predestination.” However, “the number and order of the decrees can vary from theologian to theologian; therefore the question ultimately hinges upon how a theologian understands the object of predestination.”

20. Supra 的難題
容易將上帝描述為罪的作者（author of sin）
唯意志論的傾向：上帝能以無罪的為有罪

21. Supra 的難題
Beza 的解決方案： “Beza… distinguishes between the ends and means of God’s eternal decrees, and identifies the obiectum praedestinationis as homo creabilis et labilis only with regard to the ends of election-reprobation. Though Beza would identify the decrees of creation and the fall as part of the means towards election, his emphasis is on Christ’s soteric works as well. With regard to the decrees concerning salvation as the means unto election-reprobation in Beza’s ordo, humanity is considered fallen, as these subordinate decrees are logically subsequent to the subordinate decrees of creation and the fall.” (Tseng)

22. Supra 的難題
Maccovius 的解決方案： “Another ‘pure supralapsarian’ is Johannes Maccovius ( ), whose supralapsarianism and condemnation of infralapsarianism had become 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 grace as the means unto that end (electio ad media). Maccovius’s notion of election unto grace is primarily concerned with Christ’s soteric works, though he would see the decrees of creation and the fall as part of electio ad media. For Maccovius, the ‘object’ of electio ad media is ‘fallen human beings.’ However, in electio ad finem, God’s eternal decree concerns ‘humans before they have done anything good or bad.’ Here we see that Maccovius’s supralapsarianism is primarily defined by the position that the obiectum praedestinationis is ‘homines antequam quidquam fecissent boni vel mali,’ that is, unfallen humanity.” (Tseng)

23. Goodwin 的基督中心墮落前論
「救贖之約」：“considered in the context of man as fallen.” (Mark Jones)
揀選論：區分「預定」（predestination）與「揀選」 （election） “Election is the end of God’s eternal decrees, while predestination is the means towards the end.” (Tseng) “The end is either God’s glory, what Goodwin calls the ‘supreme end of all,’ or the ‘ultimate end,’ which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect into... The latter end—the ‘ultimate end’—has in view the perfection of Christ’s elect. This 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 ‘ultimate end’ considers man as fallen.” (Jones)

24. Goodwin 的基督中心墮落前論
「救贖之約」：“considered in the context of man as fallen.” (Mark Jones)
揀選論：區分「預定」（predestination）與「揀選」 （election） “Election is the end of God’s eternal decrees, while predestination is the means towards the end.” (Tseng) “The end is either God’s glory, what Goodwin calls the ‘supreme end of all,’ or the ‘ultimate end,’ which refers to the glory God designed to bring the elect into... The latter end—the ‘ultimate end’—has in view the perfection of Christ’s elect. This 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 ‘ultimate end’ considers man as fallen.” (Jones)

25. Goodwin 的基督中心墮落前論
‘In this way, Goodwin’s 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 “pure supralapsarianism,” which “takes 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 specified.” Goodwin contends against “pure supralapsarianism” that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are not directly means unto the supreme end of election. Rather, Christ’s soteric works are God’s means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory.’ (Tseng)

26. Goodwin 的基督中心墮落前論
‘In this way, Goodwin’s 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 “pure supralapsarianism,” which “takes into the means to [the ultimate] end, the creation, and the permission of the fall, and calls them means to bring about hat intention or decree to that ultimate end or glory specified.” Goodwin contends against “pure supralapsarianism” that the decrees of creation and permission of the fall are not directly means unto the supreme end of election. Rather, Christ’s soteric works are God’s means of bringing the elect unto the ultimate end of glory.’ (Tseng)

27. Infra 的難題
Herman Bavinck: “[If] in the divine consciousness the decree of reprobation did not occur until after the decree to permit sin, the question inevitably arises: …why did God, by an act of efficacious permission, foreordain the fall? Infralapsarianism has no answer to this question other than God’s good pleasure… Reprobation cannot be explained as an act of divine justice, for the first sinful act at any rate was permitted by God’s sovereignty.”

28. Infra 的難題
Karl Barth: “Unlike the Supralapsarian…, the Infralapsarian does not think that he has any exact knowledge… of the reasons for the divine decree in respect of creation and the fall. On the contrary, he holds that the reasons for this decree are ultimately unknown and unknowable.”
巴特與巴文克皆將墮落後揀選論誤解為一系列的 means & ends

29. Owen 的基督中心墮落後論
‘The seventeenth-century infralapsarian John Owen makes clear that although the “first spring or original [of the eternal counsels of God] was in the divine will and wisdom alone” such that “no reason can be given, no cause be assigned, of these counsels, but the will of God alone,” “the design of their accomplishment was laid in the person of the Son alone. As he was the essential wisdom of God, all things were at first created by him. But upon a prospect of the ruin of all by sin, God would in and by him—as he was fore-ordained to be incarnate—restore all things.”’ (Tseng)

30. Owen 的基督中心墮落後論
“What Owen means is that when the infralapsarian ordo is understood as a chain of final causality, the origin of the decrees (i.e., God’s ultimate purpose) would be unknowable, but the way all the decrees are centred upon God’s works in Christ reveals that predestination is designed to manifest God’s self-giving glory in the incarnate Son.” (Tseng)

31. 墮落前後論的重要性
救贖論：hypothetical & absolute necessity views of the atonement （例：歐文，Disseration on Divine Justice）
政治神學：Abraham Kuyper 的墮落前揀選論與 「文化使命」一說