The God of the Bible is sovereign over all things

Plato in the Timaeus taught that his god made order out of chaos and then he (like Zeus?) made divine children that created mortal man. In this, Plato taught that his god was not in control of all things. Bible declares however that God created the heavens and the earth. He was before all things. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." - Genesis 1

Not only do we have God before all things but also shaping and forming all things in seven literal days.


Gordon H. Clark says, "It is at about this stage that Mackay begins to discuss the relation between the world and God. His view of creation is not clear. 'Chance in the sense of chaos is indeed recognized (Gen. 1:2), but only as something banished from the world by God's creative word' (p. 49). This seems to say that there was a physical world of chaos before God created the cosmos. This is similar to the work of Plato's demiurge. Yet two pages later he says, 'God has conceived and made our world out of nothing.' Then later he says, 'Creation . . . . is not just a single datable event which happened at a particular time; it is rather a continuing relationship of dependence between us and God' (p. 69). How does this fit in with 'Let there be light, and there was light'? How also does a continuing relationship between God and man fit in with 'And on the seventh day God ended his work . . . and rested . . . from all his work which he had made'? Has not Mackay again contradicted himself? That the world is now upheld by the power of God is undeniable; but creation out of nothing must be instantaneous." - Beahaviorism and Christianity, Pg. 93

The ends and means of Reprobation

"That the decree of damnation is not executed till sin be finished which bringeth forth death, Gen. 15:16, Rom. 1:28, as we of the Supra-lapsarian side {for absolute Election and Non-Election of persons in fixing the Decree, as to Love and Hatred of the persons; and yet too of the Sub-Lapsarian side for Absolute ways and means of executing the Decree, as to Salvation and Punishments} do hold; though we are slanderously reported, Rom. 3:8, by one of the Sub-Lapsarian way, as if the Supra-lapsarian theology {in Gomarus, Voet, Piscator, Perkins, Twisse, &c.,} held, that God from Eternity sentenced the greated part of mankind to Eternal Flames not for any prescience of their future ill behavior, but because he would have it so, and to show forth his Absolute Dominion over his creatures, and to manifest his Unlimited Power. Wherein now doth this text appear to propose the notion concerning offers of Grace?" - Joseph Hussey, God's Operations of Grace, Pg. 268

It is interesting to see that Joseph Hussey distinguishes between the ends and means of election and reprobation.

Robert Traill the Supralapsarian

As Robert Traill says in Volume 1 of his work, "The first of these privileges is election. And justly it is called the first: for nothing can be before it; for itself is before time; and all that they afterwards receive, flows from it. "

It is interesting to read also John Calvin saying the basic same thing about the gifts and our election.

"Lastly, these phrases denote rather the order of Divine gifts, than the cause of them. In the accumulation of graces upon graces, God derives from the former a reason for adding the next, that he may not omit any thing necessary to the enrichment of his servants. And while he thus pursues his liberality, he would have us always to remember his gratuitous election, which is the source and original of all." -John Calvin, The Institutes, 3. 15. 21. Pg. 21 second volume.

John Brine also says, "Election to salvation is the Ground and Foundation of Regeneration and Sanctification. This gracious Decree is the Fountain of all that Purity and Holiness, which men receive as a Meetness for Heaven: God hath from the Beginning chosen you to Salvation, thro' Sanctification of the Spirit." -The Causes of Salvation And Vocation Considered, pg. 38

Jew and Gentile together in Christ as the eternal plan of God

Ephesians 2:1-22, we often stop at v. 10, but should read to at least the end of the chapter. As it displays the fact that both Jew and Gentile are under sin. Though we were children of wrath - that is children dispose of all maliceness and hatefulness - God by His unmeritted favour so loved His people before the foundations of the world to make one body composed of Jew and Gentile in Christ Jesus. You can also read this throughout the OT as well - Zechariah 6:15; Ezekiel 47:22-23; 37:15-19. He alone not only predestined us but also he alone quickened us together - Psalm 119:25.

John Gill a Supralapsarian

Of course we have other passages of Gill that could be used but this one is very clear:

In the election of men, "They were considered as on an equal foot with others not elected, as men are; as men are considered, when chosen, as in the pure mass, having done neither good nor evil, so were angels; this must be out of all question, with respect to them, since the elect angels never fell, never were in any corrupt state, and could not be so considered: besides, their preservation from apostasy, and their confirmation, by grace, in the state in which they were created are in consequence of their election; and therefore must be previous to the fall of the rest, who, with them, must be considered in the pure mass of creatureship; wherefore the choice of the one, and the leaving of the other, must be entirely owing to the sovereign will of God." - Body of Divinity, Pg. 176

The cause of all things is the will of God

"The will of God is so the cause of all things, as to be itself without cause, for nothing can be the cause of that which is the cause of everything. So that the Divine will is the ne plus ultra of all our inquiries; when we ascend to that, we can go no farther. Hence we find every matter resolved ultimately into the mere sovereign pleasure of God, as the spring and occasion of whatsoever is done in heaven and earth." - Jerome Zanchius, Absolute Predestination, pg. 16 - 17

Nothing in the creature swayed God to choose one and reject the other

"The apostle, in the former chapter, more plainly and fully lays down the absolute freeness of the grace of God alone to peace, life, and salvation, than any where else; clearly shewing, that merely and only for his own good pleasure-sake, he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy; especially in that instance of Jacob and Esau, he tells us plainly, that God hath no regard in the world unto good and evil, that might be done by either of them; but, before ever they could do any such thing, it is expressly written of them, 'Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.'
And the reason, why God takes nothing into his consideration, either good or evil done by the creature as a motive to his love, the apostle gives there, is this, 'That the purpose of God might stand, according to election; not of works, but of grace,' that is, that all the world may see that the first thoughts of God, in his election, had no eye in the world unto any thing that the creature might do, which should have any prevalency with him, to sway him this way, or that way; it was not consideration of Esau, as one that would be resolute and peremptory in a way of sinfulness, that was a motive with God to reject him; nor was it consideration of any propensity in the spirit of Jacob to yield unto calling, or of any inclination in Jacob to glorify him being called...." -Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, pg. 153

Isaac Chauncy view of election in predestination is before consideration of the fall

"LV Was not Election out of the fallen corrupted Mass of Mankind foreseen?

A. No, for these Reasons 1st, Is Man was so considered by the same Reason Angels should, but Angels were not considered so. This is most evident, because the elect Angels were never in a corrupted State, and the fallen Angels never elected. 2ndly, Christ was elected 1 Peter 1:20. And the first born of Election Eph 1:4. But Christ was never chosen under the consideration of being Part of the corrupted Mass of Mankind in any Respect; therefore Election could not pass upon the corrupt Mass, because Christ must then be chosen out of it, and if so, the other Elect could not be chosen as such in him Eph 1:4. 3rd, If Men were elected out of the corrupt Mass, Election would be an Act of Mercy, whatever Reprobation is, for if a Person that is looked at as miserable among others be chosen and called out from among them as such and designed to Salvation, this is an Eye of Mercy, Pity, and Commiseration, when others in the same Condemnation or Misery with them are left to perish. When as Election is no Act of Mercy, nor Reprobation of Justice, but both of mere Sovereignty Rom 9:21-22." - Isaac Chauncy, The doctrine, which is according to godliness, grounded upon the Holy Scriptures of truth,  Pg. 63

The elect were chosen by the grace and mercy of God alone

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? - Romans 9


The argument goes something like this that God cannot be merciful to vessels that are unfallen, because mercy presupposes fallenness. But is this true? When one considers the end to which God chose the elect and the non - elect one ought to see that it was God's grace and mercy to save some and to damn others before they had done anything good or wrong.
Ultimately, God could have chosen to save person a rather than person b. But, He did not. Mercy and Grace are undeserved favors from God because those who are chosen to be saved had nothing in themselves for why God decided to save them.
Unlike, Molinism which says that their god knows all things whether what will happen or what could happen, God in Scripture knows all things before they happened and that he had also predestined those things to happened. For God to know something is for God to predestinated it. Nothing happens outside of His knowledge. Whatever happens in this life happens because God knows it will happen. So those whom He did Predestined, He Called, Justified, and Glorified.

God can only deal with those who are in Christ

"The works of God are holy, all that He made was very good. He formed man perfect and in His image. He wrote His law in his heart and glorified Himself in grace, sanctifying the elect in Christ and by the Holy Spirit. Therefore He is called the Holy One of Jacob in Isa. 29:23. From His holy hill He hears the prayers of His people. (Ps. 3:4) God, the Holy One, shall be sanctified in righteousness (Isa. 5:16) for the redemption and the comfort of the hope of His poor. He is jealous for His honor (Josh. 24:19) and is therefore great and fearfull. 'Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?' (Ex. 15:11) 'Let them praise Thy great and terrible Name; for it is holy'. (Ps. 99:3)
Because of His holiness God can have communion only with those who are perfect. Not one person is holy in himself, yet those who are in Christ, are complete in Him (Col. 2:10) for He is the Holy One of God, (Mark 1:24; Acts 3:14) and the holy Child Jesus. (Acts 4:27) He sanctified Himself for His people. (John 17:19)" -G. H. Kersten, Reformed Dogmatics, Pg. 86-87

What is hyper-calvinism?

"Contrary to the thinking of some, holding to the doctrine of supralapsarianism does not make one a hyper-Calvinist. There has always been room in the Reformed faith for supralapsarianism. Although the Reformed confessions are infralapsarian, the Canons of Dordt deliberately so over against the strong plea of Gomarus for supralapsarianism, they do not condemn supralapsarianism as unreformed or hyper-Calvinistic.
Nor is one a hyper-Calvinist because he holds the doctrine of eternal justification and immediate regeneration. Sound Reformed theologians have both denied and affirmed these teachings.
Neither is it the case that hyper-Calvinism is a matter of a strong emphasis on God's eternal counsel and God's sovereignty in salvation. No true Calvinist ever lacked this strong emphasis.
But hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher's addressing the call of the gospel, 'repent and believe on Christ crucified,' only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration and, thereby, of election, namely, some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation." -David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel

God ordains all things whatsoever happens

"God's decree, in as much as it concerneth man, is called predestination: which is the decree of God by the which he hath ordained all men to a certain and everlasting estate, that is either to salvation or condemnation, for his own glory. (1 Thessalonians 5:9) 'For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.' (Romans 9:13) 'As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.' (Romans 9:22, 23) 'What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make  known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.'
The means of accomplishing God's predestination are twofold:
The Creation and the fall." - William Perkins, A Golden Chain

The Decree of God is first in order and time

"The decree of God is that by which God in himself hath necessarily, and yet freely, from all eternity determined all things. . . . The same decree of God is the first and principal working cause of all things, which also is in order and time before all other causes. For with God's decree is always his will annexed, by the which he can willingly effect that he hath decreed. And it were a sign of impotency to decree anything which he could not willingly compass. And with God's will is conjoined an effectual power by which the Lord can bring to pass whatsoever he hath freely decreed.
The first and principal cause, howbeit in itself it be necessary, yet it doth not take away freedom of will in election, or the nature and property of second causes, but only brings them into a certain order; that is, it directeth them to the determinate end, whereupon the effects and events of things are contingent or necessary, as the nature of the second cause is. So Christ according to his Father's decree died necessarily, (Acts 17:3) but yet willingly (John 10:18); and if we respect the temperature of Christ's body, he might have prolonged his life; and therefore in this respect may he said to have died contingently." - William Perkins, A Golden Chain

In defense of the Supralapsarian position

"Thus it seems to me that the best way to decide upon the order of the decrees is to construe logical order as teleological. God has seen the end from the beginning; he has ordained the temporally prior parts to produce the intended result. If, now, the order of history is the reverse of the order of planning, we get a supralapsarian view which, if 'quite different from that which is commonly discussed in Reformed circles,' as Nicole says, is nonetheless much more consistent and intelligible.
Although my critic acknowledges 'the lucid simplicity of the principle advocated,' he apparently believes that three objections are unanswerable.
The first objection is that 'supralapsarianism does not have a real object for its first and most important decree.' Similarly Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, II, 318) writes, 'Of a Non Ens, as Turretin says, nothing can be determined.' This assumes a theory of reality that needs some explanation. Nicole says that 'the decree of creation is the indispensable prerequisite for viewing any creature as real. 'There is some plausibility for connecting creation creation itself with the reality of creatures, but I am not sure that a decree of creation without its execution gives a reality sufficient to overthrow God's purpose, plan, and intention.
If, however, one does not want to decide this point on the spur of the moment, its execution gives the kind of reality that would satisfy the writers mentioned. For if it is true that 'Of a Non Ens nothing can be determined,' then a determination to create is impossible, just as impossible as a determination to glorify. In other words, if the decree to create is put first on these grounds, the yet to be created object could be viewed neither as righteous nor as sinful, nor even as a man, for nothing can be determined of what is yet a Non Ens. This line of argument seems to make it impossible for God to have a purpose, plan, or intention. For, if the decree of election, put first, cannot envisage a created reality, similarly a decree to create cannot envisage a redeemed sinner. Thus God would decree to create without plan or intention. He would not see the end from the beginning, but only from three steps after the beginning.
Hodge, in fact, makes a sort of denial that God plans all events in view of his final end. He says, 'Creation in the Bible is never represented as a means of executing the purpose of election and reprobation.' If this were so, then either creation has no purpose at all, or God's purposes are not completely integrated - that is, creation may have some purpose, but whatever it is, it is not related to the final consummation. It seems to me that the Biblical descriptions of God, his omniscience and omnipotence, imply a complete teleology, without any disconnectedness or rupture. Hodge himself admits this on page 320. Indeed he states it emphatically. But he fails to see how God's 'one comprehensive purpose' ruins his argument against supralapsarianism." - Gordon H. Clark, Reply to Roger Nicole

Salvation is by grace alone

"Our subject is, of course, rich in meaning and presents several aspects. To say that we are saved by e expresses the truth that salvation is of the Lord. This should be emphasized from the outset. For gace is of God, and God is free and sovereign. To be saved by grace, then, means that grace is the only source, the sole explanation, the ultimate reason and ground of our salvation, the efficient cause of all that is implied in the work of our redemption and deliverance from sin and death. We are saved by grace only, without the work or cooperation of man, or we are not saved by grace at all. hence, one who would speak of salvation by grace, must understand that he is speaking of a divine work throughout." Herman Hoeksema in Wonder of Grace

Though Hoeksema is great on some things, I do not necessarily think he is the clearest theologian. Yes I do like some of the things I have read from him. He is not necessarily clear or concise. One might read Gordon H. Clark.

Before the foundations of the world God chose some men for salvation and some men for eternal destruction

"In the same way Calvinism has derived from its fundamental relation to God a peculiar interpretation of man's relation to man, and it is this only true relation which since the 16th century has ennobled social life. If Calvinism places our entire human life immediately before God, then it follows that all men or women, rich or poor, weak or strong, dull or talented, as creatures of God, and as lost sinners, have no claim whatsoever to lord over one another, and that we stand... as equals before God, and consequently equal as man to man. Hence we cannot recognize any distinction among men, save such as has been imposed by God Himself, in that He gave one authority over the other, or enriched one with more talents than the other, in order that the man of more talents should serve the man with less, and in him serve his God. Hence Calvinism condemns not merely all open slavery and systems of caste, but also all covert slavery of woman and of the poor; it is opposed to all hierarchy among men; it tolerates no aristocracy save such as it able, either in person or in family, by the grace of GOd, to exhibit superiority of character or talent, and to show that it does not claim this superiority for self-aggrandizement or ambitious price, but for the sake of spending it in the service of God. So Calvinism was bound to find its utterance in the democratic interpretation of life; to proclaim the liberty of nations; and not to rest until both politically and socially every man, simply because he is man, should be recognized, respected and dealt with as a creature created after the Divine likeness." - Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism

God's love is free and uncaused.

As a man knows only his wife so the Lord God knows His saints. God is completely holy and soveriegn and self-sustaining and sufficient thereby His love is particular and uncaused and puts significance in the object of His love.

Zanchius sadly is not a Supralapsarian but is still a good infralapsarian

"Jerome Zanchi is a reformer well known for his scholasticism and his Aristotelianism. As previously mentioned, he along with Peter Martyr Vermigli, were trained in the Thomist school of thought prior to joining the Reformation. In fact, regarding his scholasticism Richard Muller writes:

Zanchi presents the picture of a Reformer of the era just following that of Calvin, Vermigli, and Musculus, whose views had much of the same foundation as theirs, but who, because of his immersion in the system, rechniques, and philosophy of late medieval scholasticism, was able to add another dimension to Reformed theology in the sixteenth century - the dimension of detail and of clear continuity with the medieval theological tradition. 

Hence, given the fact that Zanchi's thought was entrenched in scholasticism and Aristotelianism, one might therefore conclude that he should be a supralapsarian. Yet, it might be of some surprise that Zanchi was not a supralapsarian despite his use of the scholastic metho. Zanchi writes:

Consider predestination relating to the elect only, and it is 'that eternal, unconditional, particular and irreversible act of the Divine will whereby, in matchless love and adorable sovereignty, God determined with Himself to deliver a certain number of Adam's degenerate offspring out of that sinful and miserable estate into which, by his primitive transgression, they were to fall,' and in which sad condition they were equally involved, with those who were not chosen, but, being pitched upon and singled out by God the Father to be vessels of grace and salvation.

One should take note that Zanchi identifies the object of predestination as the infralapsarian homo creatus et lapsus by the phrase: 'God determined with Himself to deliver a certain number of Adam's degenerate offspring out of that sinful and miserable estate.' What is even more interesting is that Zanchi's definition of reprobation is moderate in comparison with Calvin's. For example, Zanchi writes: 'Predestination, as it regards the reprobate, is 'that eternal, most holy, sovereign and immutable act of God's will, whereby He hath determined to leave some men to perish in their sins, and to be justly punished for them.'' Zanchi does not define reprobation as an absolute act of God as does Calvin. On the contrary, Zanchi defines reprobation in Augustinian terms of preterition. For these reasons Muller concludes that 'Zanchi defines the decree in relation to man creatus et lapsus and views election as remedy to the end that his doctrine will be soteriologically and christologically oriented.'
Hence, Zanchi, an Aristotelian, Thomist, and scholastic, is an infralapsarian, and William Perkins, a Ramist, is a supralapsarian. Along these lines, Lynne Boughton comments: 'Perkins, although he admired Beza and cited him as an authority, had arrived at a supralapsarian position based on his own philosophical and theological inquiry. The English Puritan's philosophical Scotism and Ramism led to the same conclusions in theology as had Beza's post-Renaissance Aristotelianism.' This evidence points to the fact that philosophical and methodological commitments do not serve as indicators to the lapsarian position of a theologian. What, then, do the two competing methodologies show in the work of the various theologians?" - J.V. Fesko, Diversity Within The Reformed Tradition: Supra- and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster

Double predestination does not eliminate accountability

"As therefore I hold, in truth, that Christ will in the last day recompense unto the elect the reward of righteousness, so I by no means speak falsely when I assert that the reprobate will in that day pay the punishment of their unrighteousness and of all their iniquities. And though I firmly maintain that God, in His eternal counsel, chose those whom He pleased unto life eternal and left those whom He pleased to eternal destruction; yet there will not be found in the whole of my doctrine an assertion, either that there are no punishments ordained for evil works, or that there is no reward ordained for good works."

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism

God's foreknew and elected most freely apart from any consideration of the creature

"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?'"

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism