INFRALAPSARIANISM VS SUPRALAPSARIANISM

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All


While doing some reading came across these concepts, while I am not pressed into being one or the other. I am sure that some here have come to a conclusion in this matter. I would be happy to read any comments you may have.

Among those who call themselves Calvinists there has been some difference of opinion as to the order of events in the Divine plan. The question here is, When the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallen? Were the objects of these decrees contemplated as members of a sinful, corrupt mass, or were they contemplated merely as men whom God would create? According to the infralapsarian view the order of events was as follows: God proposed,


to create;
to permit the fall;
to elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the Devil and the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins;
to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and
to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was purchased by Christ.
According to the supralapsarian view the order of events was:


to elect some creatable men (that is, men who were to be created) to life and to condemn others to destruction;
to create;
to permit the fall;
to send Christ to redeem the elect; and
to send the Holy Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the fall.
Peace to u,

Bill

[Cal]

Supralapsarian

We were chosen before creation:

EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Christ agreed to come and die before anything was made:

1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

[rmwilliamsll]

i use this issue as the least significant piece of data that Christians argue about. something akin to the 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' myth.

i believe rushdoony and north split up over this issue. although i am not positive.

[oworm]

Supralapsarian

We were chosen before creation:

EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Christ agreed to come and die before anything was made:

1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Isnt it amazing how you can read those verses in context and although we accept the implication of election,its only when contemplating it in relation to either of the lapsarian (is there such a word?) positions that the thought struck me that if we were in the mind of God before the foundation of the world then surely it follows that we were infact never out of the mind of God ?

[frumanchu]

Supralapsarian

We were chosen before creation:

EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Christ agreed to come and die before anything was made:

1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
I disagree, Cal. The infra/supra difference has to do with logical order of decrees, not temporal order. Keep in mind that the Lord is omniscient with respect to all future actualities and potentialities. The important distinguishing factor between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the Fall.

In the infralapsarian view, God viewed all of mankind in their fallen state, even though temporally the Fall had not happened yet. He then elected to redeem a number of those men.

In the supralapsarian view, all of mankind is viewed neutrally and the Lord chooses to save some and condemn others. He then allows the Fall as the means to bring about what He has already chosen for those who are ultimately condemned.

Both views see man as being elected before the foundation of the world. However, I believe supralapsarianism to be a hyper-Calvinistic view which is not Scriptural.

You can find a good summation of the differences at this link: http://www.gty.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

[Cal]

Isnt it amazing how you can read those verses in context and although we accept the implication of election,its only when contemplating it in relation to either of the lapsarian (is there such a word?) positions that the thought struck me that if we were in the mind of God before the foundation of the world then surely it follows that we were infact never out of the mind of God ?
Exactly, God doesn't have a thought! He's always had the thought.

[Cal]

I disagree, Cal. The infra/supra difference has to do with logical order of decrees, not temporal order. Keep in mind that the Lord is omniscient with respect to all future actualities and potentialities. The important distinguishing factor between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the Fall.

In the infralapsarian view, God viewed all of mankind in their fallen state, even though temporally the Fall had not happened yet. He then elected to redeem a number of those men.

In the supralapsarian view, all of mankind is viewed neutrally and the Lord chooses to save some and condemn others. He then allows the Fall as the means to bring about what He has already chosen for those who are ultimately condemned.

Both views see man as being elected before the foundation of the world. However, I believe supralapsarianism to be a hyper-Calvinistic view which is not Scriptural.

You can find a good summation of the differences at this link: http://www.gty.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm
I see what you are saying, but that means God has a thought then another thought based on that thought.

But God has never had a thought, He is. He's always had the same thoughts, that is why His name is I Am. Anyway, that's what I think (hehe).

[frumanchu]

I see what you are saying, but that means God has a thought then another thought based on that thought.

But God has never had a thought, He is. He's always had the same thoughts, that is why His name is I Am. Anyway, that's what I think (hehe).
That is false. A perfect example would be Christ's words in Matthew 11:

"Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

This is a clear example of the Lord speaking of potentialities which He chose not to make reality. He had to know that it would occur before choosing not to allow it to be so.

The Lord is not bound by time, but He is bound by logic. That is not a placement of constraint upon God...it is as simple a truth as saying He is bound by righteousness. Just as He can do nothing unrighteous, neither can He do something illogical. Both are reflections of His very nature. The very word "logos" which is translated as "Word" in John 1 (ie- the Word became flesh) is the word from which we get the English word "logic." To argue that God does the illogical (such as have effects which precede their own causes) not only challenges our entire fundamental epistemology, but also the character and nature of God Himself.

[rnmomof7]

SUPRALAPSARIANISM

I believe that is the order that lines up with scripture.

It is not popular to say that as too many Calvinists "worry" about the opinion of others outside the faith .

[rnmomof7]

That is false. A perfect example would be Christ's words in Matthew 11:

"Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

This is a clear example of the Lord speaking of potentialities which He chose not to make reality. He had to know that it would occur before choosing not to allow it to be so.

The Lord is not bound by time, but He is bound by logic. That is not a placement of constraint upon God...it is as simple a truth as saying He is bound by righteousness. Just as He can do nothing unrighteous, neither can He do something illogical. Both are reflections of His very nature. The very word "logos" which is translated as "Word" in John 1 (ie- the Word became flesh) is the word from which we get the English word "logic." To argue that God does the illogical (such as have effects which precede their own causes) not only challenges our entire fundamental epistemology, but also the character and nature of God Himself.

Beside the point IMHO.

The entire plan , from beginning to end was in Gods mind before creation . Scripture asks ," Would a man build a tower without counting the cost."

That is more in agreement with election and reprobation preceding the fall.

[frumanchu]

Beside the point IMHO.

The entire plan , from beginning to end was in Gods mind before creation . Scripture asks ," Would a man build a tower without counting the cost."

That is more in agreement with election and reprobation preceding the fall.
Temporally preceding, yes. Logically preceding, no.

By definition, the saved require something to be saved FROM. Election is of its very nature unto salvation. Election is predicated upon the need for salvation.

What the supralapsarian position does is put the cart before the horse by saying God decides to condemn men as sinners before He even contemplates them as sinners.

[oworm]

That is false. A perfect example would be Christ's words in Matthew 11:

"Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

This is a clear example of the Lord speaking of potentialities which He chose not to make reality. He had to know that it would occur before choosing not to allow it to be so..
Surely that implies that God had no foreknowledge of the potentialities. As if God said "Now here is the possible outcomes..........................Lets see what they will do!" I dont think God makes choices based on certain parameters being met,if he did that would imply he had no knowledge of the consequences of a particular event. In the passage quoted above i think Jesus is using an anthropomorphic argument to illustrate the depth of sin these cities had fallen into

[Cal]

Temporally preceding, yes. Logically preceding, no.

By definition, the saved require something to be saved FROM. Election is of its very nature unto salvation. Election is predicated upon the need for salvation.

What the supralapsarian position does is put the cart before the horse by saying God decides to condemn men as sinners before He even contemplates them as sinners.
But the loved or beloved require nothing to be saved from. We were loved first, for no other reason or event. He just loved us. Then He wanted to demonstrate to us how much he loved us. Thus began the plan of history and salvation. God decided to give His life for us as His demonstration of just how much He loved us. His love for us is our election and is what preceeded and gave incentive to everything!

[frumanchu]

Surely that implies that God had no foreknowledge of the potentialities. As if God said "Now here is the possible outcomes..........................Lets see what they will do!" I dont think God makes choices based on certain parameters being met,if he did that would imply he had no knowledge of the consequences of a particular event. In the passage quoted above i think Jesus is using an anthropomorphic argument to illustrate the depth of sin these cities had fallen into
No, I disagree that implies He does not have absolute foreknowledge. There were certainly potentialities surrounding the Fall. Notice that God did nothing to intervene when Satan tempted Eve. Surely He knew beforehand that it would happen. Surely He knew beforehand that, should He do nothing, Adam and Eve would fall. Surely He was able to prevent it from happening. And yet He did nothing. From before time He understood all of this and chose to allow it. With that choice already in mind, He looked upon the fallen race and elected a number from among the condemned to be the recipients of His divine grace and mercy.

He not only knows all possible outcomes, but He has the power to determine which actually comes to pass. It's not a guessing game. That He makes choices based on certain parameters of an event does not mean He does not foreknow the outcome...because HE controls all the parameters! :)

[rnmomof7]

No, I disagree that implies He does not have absolute foreknowledge. There were certainly potentialities surrounding the Fall. Notice that God did nothing to intervene when Satan tempted Eve. Surely He knew beforehand that it would happen. Surely He knew beforehand that, should He do nothing, Adam and Eve would fall. Surely He was able to prevent it from happening. And yet He did nothing. From before time He understood all of this and chose to allow it. With that choice already in mind, He looked upon the fallen race and elected a number from among the condemned to be the recipients of His divine grace and mercy.

He not only knows all possible outcomes, but He has the power to determine which actually comes to pass. It's not a guessing game. That He makes choices based on certain parameters of an event does not mean He does not foreknow the outcome...because HE controls all the parameters! :)

I have a problem with the words "certain potentials" it sounds like the Arminians .

He ordains them, he does not just alter them .

If I decide to do something I need to know all the future possibilities ,because I have no control over future events . God on the other hand designs the future as He will.


God fashioned man in a way that He knew that man would choose to rebel under certain conditions . He then fashioned the garden with all the conditions that would cause rebellion as the "test"

He knew before the foundation of the world that eve would be snookered by the snake , and that Adam would go along with her.

He could have ordained it differently as He was in perfect control of all circumstances .

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

Thank you all for your replies I do not want to appear to be a post and run. This appears to be a complex issue, and have ejoyed your isights on this matter. I will contuine to follow as this progresses, so carry on please.

For His Glory Alone!:clap:

Bill

[frumanchu]

I have a problem with the words "certain potentials" it sounds like the Arminians .
That is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it:) However, that's not what I said.

He ordains them, he does not just alter them .
Two different things. Ordination has to do with actualities. We're talking about potentialities. God knows that IF A THEN B. IF C THEN D. A and C are completely under His control, and thus so are B and D. If He chooses according to His sovereign will and good pleasure to do C, then He has ordained C (and thus ordained D). That does not eliminate C as a "potential" outcome.

If I decide to do something I need to know all the future possibilities ,because I have no control over future events . God on the other hand designs the future as He will.
He designs it by choosing the causes which bring the desired effects. He does not "need" to know all potentialities, He simply knows them.

Do you think that God was less than genuine when He gave warnings of judgement upon people should they do a certain thing, even though He knew with certainty that they would not do it?

God fashioned man in a way that He knew that man would choose to rebel under certain conditions . He then fashioned the garden with all the conditions that would cause rebellion as the "test"

He knew before the foundation of the world that eve would be snookered by the snake , and that Adam would go along with her.

He could have ordained it differently as He was in perfect control of all circumstances .
I agree completely. The question is, did God view man in light of the knowledge of this event when He elected them, or did He create men to be the objects of wrath and then purpose to set up the situation to give Him an excuse to exercise that wrath?

[nobdysfool]

The question is, did God view man in light of the knowledge of this event when He elected them, or did He create men to be the objects of wrath and then purpose to set up the situation to give Him an excuse to exercise that wrath?


That really is the question. If God created some men to specifically be objects of wrath, there is a certain cruelty that attaches itself to God. Any way you slice it, that is cruel. God's Election makes no sense outside of the situation of his fallen state, because Election is UNTO salvation. There would be no need for Election if there was no Fall.

The logical order of decrees really demands that God considers mankind as fallen as the basic premise. God knew that the Man He created would fall, and in fact allowed it to happen temporally, because He had another Purpose in view: that of demonstrating before all Creation that He is Holy and Just in all His dealings with His Creation, and the Only Wise Ruler. That could only be demonstrated by how He deals with rebellion.

It is axiomatic that the Fall of Lucifer happened before the Fall of Man, so the logical order of decrees also encompasses the Fall of Lucifer and one third of the Angels with him, and comes before the Fall of Man, as well as being a necessary although secondary agent in the Fall of Man. Secondary because without a command, there could be no disobedience, and with no command to disobey, there could be no temptation. Sin did not originate with Man.

Therefore, when God purposed to create, He did so knowing that Lucifer would fall, and that Man whom God would create after Lucifer's fall would also fall, and in actually creating them, He decreed that they would, in fact, fall. His decree was not for the purpose of reprobation or wrath, but for the purpose of redemption and a demonstration of His Glory, Holiness, and great Love. God gave Adam the command in the Garden, knowing that it would be Adam's downfall, not because He wanted Adam to fall, but it was needful that Adam fall, to fulfill the Purpose that He had before decreed. God could not cause Adam to fall, but He created the conditons under which Adam WOULD fall, not to have an object of wrath (He already had that in Lucifer and the fallen Angels), but to have a conduit for redemption. In the same way that Election is unto salvation, Redemption is from destruction. Neither can exist without their opposite.

We don't know all of the details of God's Will with regard to His creation. There are reasons for the way things have happened that we will not understand or even be able to see until we are with Him in Eternity. We wrestle with what little we do know, and have been shown, desiring to understand the Mind of God so that we who are saved may better serve Him, as He has fore-ordained that we should do.

[Cal]

I still can't shake that His love for Christ and us preceeded everything and from this love proceeded all.

The Scriptures teach that He loved us and therefore He or and then He etc......

He loved us therefore He wanted us to be in Christ, He loved us therefore He wanted us to live with Him for eternity, He loved us therefore He want to glorify us,etc.

So then, He created all in order to demonstarte His great love for us.

Our election then preceeded all. He didn't elect us in order to save us, He elected us when He loved us. His love for us was His election of us and this was the reason for creation, the fall, the Savior, our election to salvation, the second coming and Heaven.

This is a great lesson for the "beloved."

Now everything we do should be done out of our love for Him first, our love should preceed our works and from our love should proceed everything. See, He's teaching us to be like Him.

Love was first, and then............

[cygnusx1]

Temporally preceding, yes. Logically preceding, no.

By definition, the saved require something to be saved FROM. Election is of its very nature unto salvation. Election is predicated upon the need for salvation.

What the supralapsarian position does is put the cart before the horse by saying God decides to condemn men as sinners before He even contemplates them as sinners.


Amen!!!! :clap:


Great post Fru !! :cool:

[bradfordl]

Temporally preceding, yes. Logically preceding, no.

By definition, the saved require something to be saved FROM. Election is of its very nature unto salvation. Election is predicated upon the need for salvation.

What the supralapsarian position does is put the cart before the horse by saying God decides to condemn men as sinners before He even contemplates them as sinners.
You can only come to that conclusion if you hold to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e.; that He exists in time as we humans do. He does not. There is no before or after from His eternal perspective.

[frumanchu]

Amen!!!! :clap:
Great post Fru !! :cool:

Umm...thanks! :) How did you manage to stumble across this three year old thread? :D

[bradfordl]

Oops! Double post.

[frumanchu]

You can only come to that conclusion if you hold to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e.; that He exists in time as we humans do. He does not. There is no before or after from His eternal perspective.

That is incorrect. "Before" and "after" are not exclusively temporal concepts. They are also logical concepts. Time has to do with relativity to objective standard. Logic does not care about time, only predecence...cause and effect.

[Iosias]

I hold to supralapsarianism on the grounds of Romans 9:11 as did John Gill, Abraham Kuyper, William Twisse, Theodore Beza and others.

[bradfordl]

That is incorrect. "Before" and "after" are not exclusively temporal concepts.
Please prove this statement as true with verifiable premises.

They are also logical concepts. Time has to do with relativity to objective standard. Logic does not care about time, only predecence...cause and effect.
Human logic itself is temporal. Cause and effect, or major premise + minor premise = conclusion, are sequential in nature. We are required to practice temporal logic because we now experience a temporal existence. But we are able to apply temporal logic to the attributes of God coherently.

Example:
1. God is just.
2. Evil is unjust.
3. Therefore God is not evil.

And more relavently:
1. God's knowledge is not sequential.
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
2. Before and after are sequential terms.
3. Therefore before and after are terms that cannot apply to God's knowledge


Isa 48:3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.
Applying limitations of sequence to God is anthropomorphic. Man is not God. God is not man. We operate under the limitations that our Creator has placed upon us. We err in attempting to turn the tables and foist those limitations upon Him.

One more thing....
Logic does not care about time, only predecenceYou must see the inanity of that statement. Logic doesn't care about time, only about precedence? Precedence is a term entirely related to sequential time. The statement is self-contradictory.

Blessings,

Brad

[McWilliams]

Isaiah 57:16'......and the souls which I have made.'

So we were created souls back in eternity past, but clothed in 'dirt', or body that is, in time. But all of God's decree was formed before time began; hence, He never changes HIs mind but only continues to unfold the next detail of His afore formed decree. All of it, every detail of it was determined before time began, was it not?
History unfolds only to us; to Him it always was part of His decree! Hence, the elect and/or the reprobate, was all determined before time.

[frumanchu]

Please prove this statement as true with verifiable premises.

That's actually a rather ironic request, because you're asking me to use supposedly "temporal" logic to demonstrate that logic is not itself temporal.

Human logic itself is temporal. Cause and effect, or major premise + minor premise = conclusion, are sequential in nature. We are required to practice temporal logic because we now experience a temporal existence. But we are able to apply temporal logic to the attributes of God coherently.

Actually, the problem here lies in you failure to distinguish between sequence and time. You insist that the two are essentially synonymous when they are in fact not. Time deals with sequence in relation to something else, normally a fixed objective standard. Time is relative in the sense that it is defined by the relationship to that fixed standard. The current fixed standard employed in our society is this:

"The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

God speaks to us throughout His Word in such terms as "before the foundation of the earth" and yet you are saying that when it comes to seeking further understanding of Him we should purposely shed logic and embrace absurdity in order to reconcile those things we cannot have an exhaustive knowledge of. I don't buy that. It's like saying God speaks of us of being good, but if we really want to seek to understand further God's sovereignty we should shed our logical understanding of the contradictory relationship of good and evil and accept that God can in fact be evil even though He's good. It's simply irrational, friend.

Example:
1. God is just.
2. Evil is unjust.
3. Therefore God is not evil.

Ahh, but you're using your "temporal logic" to make that argument, and it may very well be that God is neither good nor evil, but we have to understand Him that way by "practicing temporal logic" in order to satisfy our need for coherence. Your argument is actually self-defeating.

And more relavently:
1. God's knowledge is not sequential.

2. Before and after are sequential terms.
3. Therefore before and after are terms that cannot apply to God's knowledge

You have no solid footing for your major premise (that God's knowledge is not sequential). None. Scripture does not support it, and philosophically you can only speak of it in the abstract because it's logically unprovable.

Applying limitations of sequence to God is anthropomorphic. Man is not God. God is not man. We operate under the limitations that our Creator has placed upon us. We err in attempting to turn the tables and foist those limitations upon Him.

This is the same argument the Arminians and Open Theists make when arguing for man's autonomous free will; that saying man acts according to His nature, or that God cannot grant them such autonomy, is limiting God and therefore anthropomorphic. The outcome is different, but the error is exactly the same.

You must see the inanity of that statement. Logic doesn't care about time, only about precedence? Precedence is a term entirely related to sequential time. The statement is self-contradictory.

Only because you define time as being synonymous with sequence. My argument is based on a different definition of time, therefore there is no contradiction in the argument I put forth.

Iron sharpens iron, Brad. This is an enjoyable argument :)

[cygnusx1]

Umm...thanks! :) How did you manage to stumble across this three year old thread? :D


IHi Fru , I just went walkabout ... :D

say , would you be willing to help clarify a few points , I consider myself a modified Supralapsarian , and I do think all sides reflect something of the truth , the last time I debated this issue , mainly with woody , he was inclined to say I wasn't a supra ..... as an aside , John Calvin and A W Pink have been quoted to hold to both positions .

I posted this some time ago , what do you think bro ?


as I understand it , infralapsarians and supralapsarians both see man as before the fall .That is , they both view the order of decrees prior to the fall.
And they both see reprobation as both Sovereign (no-one is not elect because of works) and condemnation as judicial.(none perish who don't deserve to)

The infras see election as being something akin to plan B!


yet , the supras see the permission of God to decree the fall and ruin of man (reprobation) as serving the purpose of saving the Elect , not the other way around! which means the Fall was a means to a higher end .......... salvation in Christ.

as i have stated earlier , this is my position , that God planned the fall (which is the foundation of the decree of reprobation) to establish the Decree of Salvation in Christ , which is predominant and preeminent in God's mind and plan.


addenda , I think my view is nearest to Robert Redmonds

Those are the two major Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election.
Robert Reymond, himself a supralapsarian, proposes the following refinement of the supralapsarian view:
Reymond's Modified
Supralapsarianism (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm#supra)

Elect some sinful men, reprobate rest
Apply redemptive benefits to the elect
Provide salvation for elect
Permit Fall
CreateNotice that in addition to reordering the decrees, Reymond's view deliberately stresses that in the decree of election and reprobation, God is contemplating men as sinners. Reymond writes, "In this scheme, unlike the former [the classic supra- order], God is represented as discriminating among men viewed as sinners and not among men viewed simply as men. (See Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 489). Reymond's refinement avoids the criticism most commonly leveled against supralapsarianism—that the supralapsarian has God damning men to perdition before He even contemplates them as sinners. But Reymond's view also leaves unanswered the question of how and why God would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the human race would fall. (Some might even argue that Reymond's refinements result in a position that, as far as the key distinction is concerned, is implicitly infralapsarian.)



http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm)



I know for a fact that A W Pink is Supralapsarian , yet he also views God's choice of men (before the fall , not just as men .......... I will make millions for hell and millions for Glory ) ........ but instead as fallen ...... they are actually contemplated as fallen.Election is by Grace , mercy can only be in view if there is contemplation of the elect as fallen.

As far as I know the order of the decrees were debated precisely because some implied God made men sinners in order to damn them , which apart from being dispicable , it is hard for anyone to accept such a view.

Yet why did God permit mankind to fall (which is the ground of reprobation) ?
and here is the answer , which I believe is of the essence of Supralapsarinaism , and I don't ever recall it being stated by infralaps .

Romans 9 Verse 22. "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."

Verse 23. "And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory."

[frumanchu]

as I understand it , infralapsarians and supralapsarians both see man as before the fall .That is , they both view the order of decrees prior to the fall.
And they both see reprobation as both Sovereign (no-one is not elect because of works) and condemnation as judicial.(none perish who don't deserve to)

The infras see election as being something akin to plan B!


yet , the supras see the permission of God to decree the fall and ruin of man (reprobation) as serving the purpose of saving the Elect , not the other way around! which means the Fall was a means to a higher end .......... salvation in Christ.

as i have stated earlier , this is my position , that God planned the fall (which is the foundation of the decree of reprobation) to establish the Decree of Salvation in Christ , which is predominant and preeminent in God's mind and plan.


addenda , I think my view is nearest to Robert Redmonds

Those are the two major Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election.
Robert Reymond, himself a supralapsarian, proposes the following refinement of the supralapsarian view:
Reymond's Modified
Supralapsarianism (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/articles/sup_infr.htm#supra)
Elect some sinful men, reprobate rest
Apply redemptive benefits to the elect
Provide salvation for elect
Permit Fall
CreateNotice that in addition to reordering the decrees, Reymond's view deliberately stresses that in the decree of election and reprobation, God is contemplating men as sinners. Reymond writes, "In this scheme, unlike the former [the classic supra- order], God is represented as discriminating among men viewed as sinners and not among men viewed simply as men. (See Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 489). Reymond's refinement avoids the criticism most commonly leveled against supralapsarianism—that the supralapsarian has God damning men to perdition before He even contemplates them as sinners. But Reymond's view also leaves unanswered the question of how and why God would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the human race would fall. (Some might even argue that Reymond's refinements result in a position that, as far as the key distinction is concerned, is implicitly infralapsarian.)



http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/articles/sup_infr.htm)



I know for a fact that A W Pink is Supralapsarian , yet he also views God's choice of men (before the fall , not just as men .......... I will make millions for hell and millions for Glory ) ........ but instead as fallen ...... they are actually contemplated as fallen.Election is by Grace , mercy can only be in view if there is contemplation of the elect as fallen.

As far as I know the order of the decrees were debated precisely because some implied God made men sinners in order to damn them , which apart from being dispicable , it is hard for anyone to accept such a view.

Yet why did God permit mankind to fall (which is the ground of reprobation) ?
and here is the answer , which I believe is of the essence of Supralapsarinaism , and I don't ever recall it being stated by infralaps .

Romans 9 Verse 22. "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."

Verse 23. "And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory."


I would agree with the sentiment that Reymond's modification is essentially infralapsarian precisely because it does address the chief object I and most other infralapsarians have to surpralapsarian, which as stated above is that it has God damning men to perdition without contemplating them as sinners. Such IMO cannot be reconciled with God's perfect justice, and the Fall becomes a necessary act to give justification to a verdict He had already rendered before any evidence was presented.

One of the key misunderstandings I encounter as an infralapsarian is the difference between God's decree of the Fall and the Fall's actual occurence. God's decree of the Fall is completely sovereign...He is not taken surprise by it and then forced to come up with a "Plan B" as you said. In contemplating all the contingencies of Creation (ALL of which are variant according to secondary cause and still without exception fall under His sovereign control), He choose according to His good pleasure to ordain the Fall (as opposed to any other outcome of Creation which He could have purposed). In so doing He consciously knew He was ordaining the Fall of the entire human race. The Father then choose according to His good pleasure to select from among fallen men a number to present to the Son as a bride, and the Son agreed to provide the means by which they would be purified, and the Spirit agreed to provide the means of application of that redemption. The rest were left in their sins to be the recipients of God's divine wrath and judgement.

Following all this was Gen 1:1 and onward (Creation, Fall, etc).

It says above that Reymond's position "leaves unanswered the question of how and why God would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the human race would fall." In that respect he is simply "moving the problem" of Supralapsarianism, and that is God holding malice towards men without any substantive justification for doing so. If He regards them as sinners without the Fall in view, then we are left with severe problems. If men were sinners prior to the Fall, then manking was NOT created upright. If the Fall was not in view and man was created initially upright, what possible sin could God have had in view that would provide a just basis for His condemnation?

From my perspective, Supralapsarianism embraces inconsistency for the sake of what it preceives as upholding God's sovereignty.

Hey, you asked :)

[Iosias]

Rom 9:11 "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )"

Notice here that God's choice was when "neither having done any good or evil". :)

Theodore Beza states on this verse:

"...Rom. 9.11,12,13, where he saith not only that Esau was ordained to be hated before he did any evil (for in so saying he should not seem to exclude any thing but actual sin and incredulity) but saith expressly, before he was born, whereby he excludeth the original sin, & all that which might be considered in the person of Esau by his birth, from the cause of the hate.

Therefore anon after, when he sheweth how the Reprobate murmur, and reply, he doth not say, that they speak in this sort: Why doth not God hate others alike, seeing they are also born in the same corruption that we be? The Apostle speaketh no such words, but he saith their reason is in this sort: who can resist his will? For hereof man's reason gathereth, that they are unjustly condemned. And yet Paul doth not answer, that God would so, because he saw that they would be corrupt, and so consequently that the cause of his decree should be grounded on their corruption (the which answer had been clear and resolute, if it had been true) but forasmuch as he saith plainly, it so pleased God, and it was not in their power to change this his good pleasure, he bridleth man's wisdom, that it might reverence and wonder at God's mysteries, as it is most just to do. And also encourageth the Elect to honor the grace of God, which is declared and made famous by such a corruption.

In this sort then the other places of the Scripture which conduct and lift us up to behold the sovereign will of God, which is the only rule of justice ought to be expounded." (see (http://www.covenanter.org/Beza/bezas_table.html))

[Iosias]

John Gill's position was thus:

"And here is the proper place to discuss that question, Whether men were considered, in the mind of God, in the decree of election, as fallen or unfallen; as in the corrupt mass, through the fall; or in the pure mass of creatureship, previous to it; and as to be created? There are some that think that the latter, so considered, were the objects of election in the divine mind; who are called supralapsarians; though of these some are of opinion that man was considered, as to be created, or creatable; and others, as created, but not fallen. The former seems best; that of the vast number of individuals that came up in the divine mind, that his power could create, those that he meant to bring into being, he designed to glorify himself by them in some way or another; the decrees of election, respecting any part of them; may be distinguished into the decree of the end, and the decree of the means. The decree of the end, respecting some, is either subordinate to their eternal happiness, or ultimate; which is more properly the end, the glory of God; and if both are put together, it is a state of everlasting communion with God, for the glorifying the riches of his sovereign grace and goodness (Eph. 1:5, 6). The decree of the means, includes the decree to create men, to permit them to fall, to recover them out of it through redemption by Christ, to sanctify them by the grace of the Spirit, and completely save them; and which are not to be reckoned as materially many decrees, but as making one formal decree; or they are not to be considered as subordinate, but coordinate means, and as making up one entire complete medium; for it is not to be supposed that God decreed to create man, that he might permit him to fall; nor that he decreed to permit him to fall, that he might redeem, sanctify, and save him; but he decreed all this that he might glorify his grace, mercy, and justice. And in this way of considering the decrees of God, they think they sufficiently obviate and remove the slanderous calumny cast upon them, with respect to the other branch of predestination, which leaves men in the same state when others are chosen, and that for the glory of God. Which calumny is, that according to them, God made man to damn him; whereas, according to their real sentiments, God decreed to make man, and made man, neither to damn him, nor save him, but for his own glory; which end is answered in them, some way or another. Again, they argue that the end is first in view, before the means; and the decree of the end is, in order of nature, before the decree of the means; and what is first in intention, is last in execution: now as the glory of God is the last in execution, it must be first in intention; wherefore men must be considered, in the decree of the end, as not yet created and fallen; since the creation and permission of sin, belong to the decree of the means; which, in order of nature, is after the decree of the end: and they add to this, that if God first decreed to create man, and suffer him to fall, and then, out of the fall chose some to grace and glory; he must decree to create man without an end, which is to make God to do what no wise man would; for when a man is about to do any thing, he proposes an end, and then contrives and fixes on ways and means to bring about that end: and it cannot be thought that the all-wise and only-wise God should act otherwise; who does all his works in wisdom, and has wisely designed them for his own glory, (Prov. 16:4 they think also that this way of conceiving and speaking of these things, best expresses the sovereignty of God in them; as declared in the ninth of the Romans; where he is said to will such and such things, for no other reason but because he wills them; and hence the objector to the sovereign decrees of God is brought in saying, "Why does he yet find fault? who hath resisted his will?" and the answer to it is taken from the sovereign power of the potter over his clay; to which is added, "What if God willing", &c. to do this or that, who has anything to say against it? he is accountable to none (Rom. 9:15, 19, 20, 22). And this way of reasoning is thought to suit better with the instance of Jacob and Esau, the children being not yet born, and having done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, (Rom. 9:11) than with supposing persons considered in predestination, as already created, and in the corrupt mass; and particularly it best suits with the unformed clay of the potter, out of which he makes one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour; on which Beza remarks, that if the apostle had considered mankind as corrupted, he would not have said, that some vessels were made to honour, and some to dishonour; but rather, that seeing all the vessels would be fit for dishonour, some were left in that dishonour, and others translated from dishonour to honour. They further observe, that elect angels could not be considered in the corrupt mass, when chosen; since they never fell, and therefore it is most reasonable, that as they, so those angels that were not chosen, were considered in the same pure mass of creatureship; and so in like manner men; to which they add the human nature of Christ, which is the object of election to a greater dignity than that of angels and men, could not be considered in the corrupt mass, since it fell not in Adam, nor never came into any corrupt state; and yet it was chosen out of the people, (Ps. 89:19) and consequently the people out of whom it was chosen, must be considered as yet not fallen and corrupt; and who also were chosen in him, and therefore not so considered. These are hints of some of the arguments used on this side of the question."

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_2/book2_02.htm

[frumanchu]

Theodore Beza states on this verse:

"...Rom. 9.11,12,13, where he saith not only that Esau was ordained to be hated before he did any evil (for in so saying he should not seem to exclude any thing but actual sin and incredulity) but saith expressly, before he was born, whereby he excludeth the original sin, & all that which might be considered in the person of Esau by his birth, from the cause of the hate.

The part in bold is what I believe to be the crucial error Beza makes in his argument. It's certainly a denial of the covenant federal view of the Fall in that it denies that God can regard the unborn as fallen by virtue of their covenant identity with Adam outside of the context of their actual sins in life. In that respect I find Beza to be going quite well beyond what the context of the verse indicates. The sufficient point in context is that God did not love Jacob and hate Esau because of anything sin they actually did or did not commit (and likewise His foreknowledge thereof), but rather according to His sovereign good purpose. That God's regard toward the two of them was outside the context of their actual sin in their lives (or the foreknowledge thereof) does not necessitate that it therefore be outside the context of their covenantal position as fallen in Adam.

[bradfordl]

That's actually a rather ironic request, because you're asking me to use supposedly "temporal" logic to demonstrate that logic is not itself temporal.
No sir, I asked you to demonstrate that the statement ""Before" and "after" are not exclusively temporal concepts. " is coherent. To state that you must use logic to do so is redundant, and does not address the question, as I did not ask you to prove anything about logic itself. Perhaps at some point you might feel like answering the actual question?
Actually, the problem here lies in you failure to distinguish between sequence and time. You insist that the two are essentially synonymous when they are in fact not. Time deals with sequence in relation to something else, normally a fixed objective standard. Time is relative in the sense that it is defined by the relationship to that fixed standard. The current fixed standard employed in our society is this:

"The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."Nice dodge, and with impressive factaroonies to boot! You are attempting to cloud the actual question with trivial distinctions between the concept of time, and the arbitrary measure of it. Irrelavent conclusion. That's like refusing to acknowledge that a bicycle rolls down the road because you're busy counting the spokes on the back wheel. That is incoherent. Time is a sequence of events, regardless of how you measure it. Logic is the analysis of the coherence of a sequence of ideas, so if you wish, we'll call it sequential in nature. But you can't have sequence without the passage of time, so then they are essentially equivalencies, and logic is temporal.
God speaks to us throughout His Word in such terms as "before the foundation of the earth" and yet you are saying that when it comes to seeking further understanding of Him we should purposely shed logic and embrace absurdity in order to reconcile those things we cannot have an exhaustive knowledge of.I said no such thing. Quite the opposite. As I said, "But we are able to apply temporal logic to the attributes of God coherently." If it will ease your distress, I'll call it sequential logic, but as noted above, they are equivalancies, therefore the distinction is immaterial. It is necessary that we apply logic to all things God has said to us to understand it as coherent.

I don't buy that. It's like saying God speaks of us of being good, but if we really want to seek to understand further God's sovereignty we should shed our logical understanding of the contradictory relationship of good and evil and accept that God can in fact be evil even though He's good. It's simply irrational, friend.You claiming that conclusion from my statements is what is irrational.

Ahh, but you're using your "temporal logic" to make that argument, and it may very well be that God is neither good nor evil, but we have to understand Him that way by "practicing temporal logic" in order to satisfy our need for coherence. Your argument is actually self-defeating.
Again, never stated we should not utilize logic to understand the workings or character of God. It is necessary.

You have no solid footing for your major premise (that God's knowledge is not sequential). None. Scripture does not support it, and philosophically you can only speak of it in the abstract because it's logically unprovable.
Ok, let's see if that is so. I assume that since this is a Christain forum, and reformed part of it at that, we all agree on the inerrancy of scripture. If I'm wrong there, please correct me.
So when God says;
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: And;
Isa 48:3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass. That's not proof that God's knowledge is not sequential? He knows the end from the beginning. We're not speaking of how He carries out His plan, but of His knowledge. Obviously His knowledge does not change sequentially with the passage of time. He knows all things, knows every event before, during, and after, and at all times. If that does not establish my major premise, then do you reject the inerrancy of scripture, or are you an open theist (much the same thing).

Quote:
Applying limitations of sequence to God is anthropomorphic. Man is not God. God is not man. We operate under the limitations that our Creator has placed upon us. We err in attempting to turn the tables and foist those limitations upon Him.
This is the same argument the Arminians and Open Theists make when arguing for man's autonomous free will; that saying man acts according to His nature, or that God cannot grant them such autonomy, is limiting God and therefore anthropomorphic. The outcome is different, but the error is exactly the same.
Wow! That's interesting. A statement rejecting the sequential or temporal limitation of the characteristics of God is an arminian or open theistic argument? We must have vastly different ideas of what those theologies are.

Anyway, my original point (that seems to have gotten lost) is that the infralapsarian position makes no sense because God's knowledge of events is not sequential. He doesn't have to change His plan due to any unforeseen events.

Cheers,

Brad

[Iosias]

The sufficient point in context is that God did not love Jacob and hate Esau because of anything sin they actually did or did not commit (and likewise His foreknowledge thereof), but rather according to His sovereign good purpose. That God's regard toward the two of them was outside the context of their actual sin in their lives (or the foreknowledge thereof) does not necessitate that it therefore be outside the context of their covenantal position as fallen in Adam.

But we are speaking of a time prior to their covenantal position as fallen in Adam.

You are indeed correct that "The sufficient point in context is that God did not love Jacob and hate Esau because of anything sin they actually did or did not commit (and likewise His foreknowledge thereof), but rather according to His sovereign good purpose."

So what is this verse teaching? Is it teaching that God's election of Jacob was not upon foreseen works and faith? So agreeing with the Lambeth Articles "The moving cause of predestination to life is not the foreknowledge of faith and good works, but only the good pleasure of God." If so what is the time it is refering to? Is it speaking of before the foundation of the world?

[frumanchu]

No sir, I asked you to demonstrate that the statement ""Before" and "after" are not exclusively temporal concepts. " is coherent. To state that you must use logic to do so is redundant, and does not address the question, as I did not ask you to prove anything about logic itself. Perhaps at some point you might feel like answering the actual question?

Dismount, friend. I would like to think we can approach this as a rational and calm argument between brothers. Can we both agree to do that from this point forward?

We clearly have some confusion on what "time" consititutes. Until we can get clarification on that point it is utterly useless for me to attempt to present an argument for sequential terms like "before" and "after" to be something other than temporal since you define time and sequence as being synonymous. If we disagree on the validity of a premise, what follows from it is rather pointless. So, let's focus on that first.

Nice dodge, and with impressive factaroonies to boot! You are attempting to cloud the actual question with trivial distinctions between the concept of time, and the arbitrary measure of it. Irrelavent conclusion. That's like refusing to acknowledge that a bicycle rolls down the road because you're busy counting the spokes on the back wheel. That is incoherent.

Incorrect analogy, friend, and I am most certainly not clouding the question. If you and I are proceeding from contradictory premises, then we have to address that premise first, which is what I am attempting to do.

Time is a sequence of events, regardless of how you measure it. Logic is the analysis of the coherence of a sequence of ideas, so if you wish, we'll call it sequential in nature. But you can't have sequence without the passage of time, so then they are essentially equivalencies, and logic is temporal.

And here is the primary point of disagreement, friend. Time indeed corresponds to a sequence of events, but it does not therefore follow that every sequence of events has a corresponding time. Sequence deals with "how." Time deals with "how long." I disagree that you cannot have sequence without the passage of time because without the measurement of time time itself it is a meaningless abstract concept.

I said no such thing. Quite the opposite. As I said, "But we are able to apply temporal logic to the attributes of God coherently." If it will ease your distress, I'll call it sequential logic, but as noted above, they are equivalancies, therefore the distinction is immaterial. It is necessary that we apply logic to all things God has said to us to understand it as coherent.

In this case though you are foregoing such logic for the sake of clinging to perceived coherence (which concept is itself oxymoronic). My point was that what you said regarding applying temporal logic is not being put into practice when it comes to embracing the view you are putting forth, but again it goes back to the difference in premises we have.

You claiming that conclusion from my statements is what is irrational.

It was quite rational. I was implicitly referring to the law of non-contradiction and drawing the parallel between the contradictory nature of saying something is done "before" and yet is done without sequence, and that of saying God is good and yet can act outside the context of good and evil.

Ok, let's see if that is so. I assume that since this is a Christain forum, and reformed part of it at that, we all agree on the inerrancy of scripture. If I'm wrong there, please correct me.
So when God says;
And;
That's not proof that God's knowledge is not sequential? He knows the end from the beginning. We're not speaking of how He carries out His plan, but of His knowledge. Obviously His knowledge does not change sequentially with the passage of time. He knows all things, knows every event before, during, and after, and at all times. If that does not establish my major premise, then do you reject the inerrancy of scripture, or are you an open theist (much the same thing).

Friend, your error here is in arguing that because God's actions and knowledge have no sequence in time (that is, within the framework of this universe) that they therefore have no sequence at all. That He knows things prior to their occurence in time (and indeed before "time" even existed) does not preclude the sequence of God's thoughts.

Wow! That's interesting. A statement rejecting the sequential or temporal limitation of the characteristics of God is an arminian or open theistic argument? We must have vastly different ideas of what those theologies are.

The error is in the method, friend, not in the details.

Anyway, my original point (that seems to have gotten lost) is that the infralapsarian position makes no sense because God's knowledge of events is not sequential. He doesn't have to change His plan due to any unforeseen events.

And the inherent problem in your statement is the presumption that sequence = time, a presumption which I believe to be false.

[frumanchu]

But we are speaking of a time prior to their covenantal position as fallen in Adam.

That is true from the standpoint of this temporal universe, but the presumption here seems to be that it is sequentially prior to God's consideration of them as fallen in Adam pursuant to His decision to ordain the Fall. I see no support for that presumption, which is the same as that of Beza, in this verse. There is no need to prove to me that God's consideration of Jacob and Esau with regards to election occurred "before time" (and thus before the Fall actually happened), for I readily affirm this. What I do not see proof or justification for is the position that said consideration occurred outside God's foreknowledge and fore-ordination "before time" of the Fall from.

You are indeed correct that "The sufficient point in context is that God did not love Jacob and hate Esau because of anything sin they actually did or did not commit (and likewise His foreknowledge thereof), but rather according to His sovereign good purpose."

So what is this verse teaching? Is it teaching that God's election of Jacob was not upon foreseen works and faith? So agreeing with the Lambeth Articles "The moving cause of predestination to life is not the foreknowledge of faith and good works, but only the good pleasure of God." If so what is the time it is refering to? Is it speaking of before the foundation of the world?

That the "moving cause of predestination" was God's good pleasure and occurred "before the foundation of the world" is not in conflict with the consideration of the Fall. The inconsistency is in the essential belief that God can and did decree the election of individuals before their actual existence in time, but cannot and did not do so with consideration of (and in the context of) the Fall before its actual existence in time.

[bradfordl]

Dismount, friend. I would like to think we can approach this as a rational and calm argument between brothers. Can we both agree to do that from this point forward?
Not mounted, brother fru. My tone was no more harsh than yours, and I did not consider either to be not rational and calm. Scolding is unnecessary and condescending, and a debate tactic intended to establish higher ground. Please refrain. You still have not answered the original question. Can you prove that statement with a coherent syllology or not?


And here is the primary point of disagreement, friend. Time indeed corresponds to a sequence of events, but it does not therefore follow that every sequence of events has a corresponding time. Sequence deals with "how." Time deals with "how long."
Fru, that is a nice bundle of words, but for the life of me, I can't decipher your point. You apparently only view time as a measurement. Strange. But the statement "it does not follow that every sequence of events has a corresponding time" is incoherent and unrelated. Every sequence of events happens in sequential order in time.

In this case though you are foregoing such logic for the sake of clinging to perceived coherence (which concept is itself oxymoronic).
Keep saying it and maybe it'll make it true. I have not "foregone" logic at all, and am insisting on its application to the OP. Can we stay on topic?

My point was that what you said regarding applying temporal logic is not being put into practice when it comes to embracing the view you are putting forth, but again it goes back to the difference in premises we have.
Please simplify this for me by showing it in some logical form. You proclamation is not supported with any evidence.

It was quite rational. I was implicitly referring to the law of non-contradiction and drawing the parallel between the contradictory nature of saying something is done "before" and yet is done without sequence, and that of saying God is good and yet can act outside the context of good and evil.

These are not parallels, but unrelated, and therefore not analogous. Besides, I have not said anything was done before or after anything. If you refer to God stating that He had done something before the foundations, that is immaterial. He has decreed all things before, during and after all things. My point is that the idea that God adjusted in time to an event as though He had not ordained its happening is incoherent in light of His eternal and omniscient estate.

Friend, your error here is in arguing that because God's actions and knowledge have no sequence in time (that is, within the framework of this universe) that they therefore have no sequence at all. Your error, sir, is in misrepresenting my statements. I have not said that God's actions have no sequence in time. I have said that God's knowledge/thoughts cannot be anthropomorphically implied to be linear, or sequential in time. Infralapsarianism does just that, as does arminianism and open theism.

That He knows things prior to their occurence in time (and indeed before "time" even existed) does not preclude the sequence of God's thoughts. That He knew ALL things before time began does preclude that any sequence of thoughts happened before time began, and not in the midst of events in Eden.

Cheers,

Brad

[bradfordl]

Question 1: Did God plan the fall?
Question 2: Did God plan save some?
Question 3: Did God plan to not save others?
Question 4: Did God know all of His plan before creation?

[frumanchu]

You still have not answered the original question. Can you prove that statement with a coherent syllology or not?

Despite what I said about there being little point in doing so given our disagreement on premises, I will do so to illustrate the problem.

Premise: "Before" and "after" are sequential concepts
Premise: Not all sequential concepts are temporal concepts
Conclusion: "Before" and "after" are not exclusively temporal concepts.

Fru, that is a nice bundle of words, but for the life of me, I can't decipher your point. You apparently only view time as a measurement. Strange. But the statement "it does not follow that every sequence of events has a corresponding time" is incoherent and unrelated. Every sequence of events happens in sequential order in time.

And again, I disagree that sequential order = time. I will though make a clarification here. The "time" I speak of is time as we understand it in this universe. This universe is finite. It has beginning and end, and it has a definitive set of assumed constants by which the passage from the beginning to end is measured (or at least measurable). So it is agreed from both our perspectives that God is in no way subject to "time" as it relates to Creation. In the case of God's thoughts and actions in eternity, there is no such constant or frame of reference by which there could be a measurement. There is simply order.

These are not parallels, but unrelated, and therefore not analogous. Besides, I have not said anything was done before or after anything. If you refer to God stating that He had done something before the foundations, that is immaterial. He has decreed all things before, during and after all things. My point is that the idea that God adjusted in time to an event as though He had not ordained its happening is incoherent in light of His eternal and omniscient estate.

What I bolded above is clearly what you seem to be arguing against, but it is not my position. Everything I am discussing in terms of logical order of decree is wholly done from eternity and is contingent only upon that which God has decided or contemplated from that standpoint. At no point was foreknowledge (in the sense of foresight of actual events in Creation) a factor in the decrees of God. All was contemplated and conceived of in the mind of God. At no point did He need to look to Creation to 'figure out what to do next' for nothing in Creation occurred without His prior ordination and decree thereof.

Your error, sir, is in misrepresenting my statements. I have not said that God's actions have no sequence in time. I have said that God's knowledge/thoughts cannot be anthropomorphically implied to be linear, or sequential in time. Infralapsarianism does just that, as does arminianism and open theism.

And in so stating I believe you to be misrepresenting my statements :) Hopefully the last statements I made will clear that up.

That He knew ALL things before time began does preclude that any sequence of thoughts happened before time began, and not in the midst of events in Eden.

I know of no infralapsarian that believes any portion of God's eternal decrees occurred "in the midst of events in Eden." You obviously believe that is what we hold to or you wouldn't be arguing against it as such, but that is most definitely NOT what we believe.

I will think on this a bit this evening and see if I can come up with a clearer explanation of what the infralapsarian position actually is.

[frumanchu]

Question 1: Did God plan the fall?
Question 2: Did God plan save some?
Question 3: Did God plan to not save others?
Question 4: Did God know all of His plan before creation?

Yes to all four. All four are perfectly in keeping with the infralapsarian position.

[cygnusx1]

I would agree with the sentiment that Reymond's modification is essentially infralapsarian precisely because it does address the chief object I and most other infralapsarians have to surpralapsarian, which as stated above is that it has God damning men to perdition without contemplating them as sinners. Such IMO cannot be reconciled with God's perfect justice, and the Fall becomes a necessary act to give justification to a verdict He had already rendered before any evidence was presented.

One of the key misunderstandings I encounter as an infralapsarian is the difference between God's decree of the Fall and the Fall's actual occurence. God's decree of the Fall is completely sovereign...He is not taken surprise by it and then forced to come up with a "Plan B" as you said. In contemplating all the contingencies of Creation (ALL of which are variant according to secondary cause and still without exception fall under His sovereign control), He choose according to His good pleasure to ordain the Fall (as opposed to any other outcome of Creation which He could have purposed). In so doing He consciously knew He was ordaining the Fall of the entire human race. The Father then choose according to His good pleasure to select from among fallen men a number to present to the Son as a bride, and the Son agreed to provide the means by which they would be purified, and the Spirit agreed to provide the means of application of that redemption. The rest were left in their sins to be the recipients of God's divine wrath and judgement.

Following all this was Gen 1:1 and onward (Creation, Fall, etc).

It says above that Reymond's position "leaves unanswered the question of how and why God would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the human race would fall." In that respect he is simply "moving the problem" of Supralapsarianism, and that is God holding malice towards men without any substantive justification for doing so. If He regards them as sinners without the Fall in view, then we are left with severe problems. If men were sinners prior to the Fall, then manking was NOT created upright. If the Fall was not in view and man was created initially upright, what possible sin could God have had in view that would provide a just basis for His condemnation?

From my perspective, Supralapsarianism embraces inconsistency for the sake of what it preceives as upholding God's sovereignty.

Hey, you asked :)

Thanks for your time Fru .

the following is taken from some posts I made when double predestination was debated.

As I understand it , first God passes some men by (from the decree of Election) and then ''ordain(s) them to dishonor and wrath for their sin.

so there is a passing by , this must be so because the side of Unconditional Election is not contingent upon works of any kind (before the twins had done good or bad)

however , that passing by is not the end of the decree of reprobation , God cannot and will not condemn the "innocent" , so they are devoted to dishonour and wrath for their sin (double predestination)

Those who oppose double predestination (Lutherans although not Martin Luther) do so based upon the concept of preterition alone , and leave the lives of the non-elect undetermined ....... there is no decree concerning these ..... that concept is not upheld by the Confessions , nor by Augustine and certainly not by Calvin.

Also ... Romans 9 does speak of God the potter fashioning not ONE type of pot .... but TWO!

sure , God doesn't work sin in people , no-one said He did , all Calvinistic creeds speak of a decree that is both permissive and effective ..... yet even that which is permitted is permitted with a reason : God's Glory!

the bottom line is , when God creates does He know what He is doing ?
When he makes every single person does God have a knowledge prior to there creation of their end?
Or is God an abstract painter , an improviser?



21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 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:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9

many assume reprobation is nothing to do with sin , they think like this because Election is from everlasting , before Creation!


yet , a close look at the ground for condemnation will show that reprobation is with due consideration of sin.

take the sinners condemnation , had he died before he even sinned , he would have been lost (except for Sovereign Grace)

and what is more the very fact that sinners die before they can sin , is evidence of being condemned by the sin of another:Adam.

A man is not condemned for breaking the Law of Moses , he is not condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ and the Gospel ......... these are additions to their already condemned state.

The decree of Reprobation ......... all mankind are reprobated by the act of one man , Adam , from out of that lump of clay (fallen) , the Lord is pleased to mold vessels for mercy and vessels for wrath , God is not making innocent reprobates for destruction , they already have lost their innocence , through the sin of one man.

In Romans 9 , we are given much in the way of anaology ........ the case of Jacob and Esau being the strongest .

''The elder shall serve the younger''

this can be taken at many levels .

yet , a closer inspection of the whole chapter , will show that the decree of Reprobation served the decree of Election ...... NOT the other way about!

(Infra / Supra)

True , God from all eternity decreed all that will be , but in reference to God , sin and reprobation there is order.

Most men hate Calvinism , because they assume that God takes innocent men , places them in a decree in order to burn them forever!

That is so far from the truth that it is shocking!

God permitted the Fall of Adam , which included the reprobation of the entire human race, from which God is pleased to make an Election (also before time) unto everlasting life on the grounds of Mercy alone ..... who needs mercy when there is no sin!

The rest of mankind are left in their sin , due to the sin of Adam , and although given many opportunities to repent and be saved , due to the hardness that is in them from birth , they resist God's Spirit and add to their condemnation , ie , they are "fitted for destruction "

So The Lord permitted sin , in order to show mercy.
The decree of the permission for sin (Esau) serves the decree to save the Elect (Jacob)

Amen!


I know for a fact that A W Pink is Supralapsarian , yet he also views God's choice of men (before the fall , not just as men .......... I will make millions for hell and millions for Glory ) ........ but instead as fallen ...... they are actually contemplated as fallen.Election is by Grace , mercy can only be in view if there is contemplation of the elect as fallen.

As far as I know the order of the decrees were debated precisely because some implied God made men sinners in order to damn them , which apart from being dispicable , it is hard for anyone to accept such a view.

Yet why did God permit mankind to fall (which is the ground of reprobation) ?
and here is the answer , which I believe is of the essence of Supralapsarinaism , and I don't ever recall it being stated by infralaps .

Romans 9 Verse 22. "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."

Verse 23. "And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory."


''Under Supralapsarianism, God is said to Elect and Reprobate without any consideration for fallen man''.

this is both true and false .......... for Reprobation has not ONE side but TWO!

considering why God would choose Jacob over Esau ....... neither sin nor good works is the answer , only God's Grace (emphasis on Grace!)

yet within the decree of reprobation there is also condemnation .......... now why does God condemn the reprobate ?
Because of their own sin. It has nothing to do with an arbitrary descision by God , it is simply Divine Justice.

[bradfordl]

OK, after a little more study, I think I may understand this a little better. And I must have misunderstood the difference between these two positions.

I assumed that infra (after) laps (the fall) arianism meant that God made a decision after an event that He had not made before it. My bad.

If I'm correct now, the debate is between whether He determined who to save before He determined to ordain the fall, or after; all before the beginning of time.

If this is right (set me straight if not), then I must say it appears to me that both positions are anthropomorphic. It is the application of sequence to God's planning, but I don't see how a being Who exists outside of - and unfettered by the limitations of - time can be characterized as experiencing sequential thought processes.

I'm sure the differences between supra and infra have all sorts of theological implications that I don't know about, as well as does the idea that both are wrong, but looking at the question in isolation, that's the best conclusion I can see. I can't conceive of God having a first then second thought before time existed. That would imply an exponential process or growth of His knowledge that would necessarily then imply a beginning, or at least a point at which He was less than He is, or became.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.


Maybe some of you wiser folks can explain why my conclusion is wrong.

Sorry for misunderstanding your position, :doh: fru, but I still think it (as I understand it now) doesn't make sense.

Cheers,

Brad

[frumanchu]

No problem at all, Brad. It was becoming quickly obvious that you were misunderstanding the infra position. I apologize if I wasn't as patient as I could/should have been.

I see what the sticking point is for you as far as sequentialism, but I think logic necessitates it. I'll see if I can explain better soon.

[Iosias]

There is no need to prove to me that God's consideration of Jacob and Esau with regards to election occurred "before time" (and thus before the Fall actually happened), for I readily affirm this.

So when God chose Jacob this was before time as you yourself have stated above. Now if this is the case then Romans 9:11 points back to then also...i.e. St. Paul is declaring that Jacob was chosen before he did any good or evil and that Esau was rejected before he did any good or evil. As we have acertained this was before they did evil and so I posit that the import of the phrase in Romans 9:11 is that God's choice of rejecting Esau was before Esau did anything evil in the mind of God i.e. "neither having done any good or evil" therefore God's rejection of Esau was not based upon foreseen sin as Jacob's election was not based upon foreseen faith. Hence reprobation is unconditional.

[frumanchu]

So when God chose Jacob this was before time as you yourself have stated above. Now if this is the case then Romans 9:11 points back to then also...i.e. St. Paul is declaring that Jacob was chosen before he did any good or evil and that Esau was rejected before he did any good or evil. As we have acertained this was before they did evil and so I posit that the import of the phrase in Romans 9:11 is that God's choice of rejecting Esau was before Esau did anything evil in the mind of God i.e. "neither having done any good or evil" therefore God's rejection of Esau was not based upon foreseen sin as Jacob's election was not based upon foreseen faith. Hence reprobation is unconditional.

What you have the burden to prove at this point was that "neither having done any good or evil" not only refers to the fact that they had not committed any sins of their own accord, but also that they were not being viewed within the covenant context of Adam.

All men are regarded as sinners prior to ever actually committing a sin because they are regarded as sinful based on the covenant headship of Adam, who by sinning brought condemnation upon his entire race.

What you need to prove here from the text is that despite speaking to the fact that they did no good or evil yet, they also were not regarded within the covenant framework of the Fall. I submit that you cannot because the text does not support such a notion.

[Iosias]

What you have the burden to prove at this point was that "neither having done any good or evil" not only refers to the fact that they had not committed any sins of their own accord, but also that they were not being viewed within the covenant context of Adam.

The fact that God was viewing then as still uncreated and before they had done good or evil precludes them being viewed within the covenant context of Adam. For their being viewed before their having done evil would mean by necessity their being viewed before they had done any good or evil in their covenant head.

[Iosias]

John Gill's position was thus:

"And here is the proper place to discuss that question, Whether men were considered, in the mind of God, in the decree of election, as fallen or unfallen; as in the corrupt mass, through the fall; or in the pure mass of creatureship, previous to it; and as to be created? There are some that think that the latter, so considered, were the objects of election in the divine mind; who are called supralapsarians; though of these some are of opinion that man was considered, as to be created, or creatable; and others, as created, but not fallen. The former seems best; that of the vast number of individuals that came up in the divine mind, that his power could create, those that he meant to bring into being, he designed to glorify himself by them in some way or another; the decrees of election, respecting any part of them; may be distinguished into the decree of the end, and the decree of the means. The decree of the end, respecting some, is either subordinate to their eternal happiness, or ultimate; which is more properly the end, the glory of God; and if both are put together, it is a state of everlasting communion with God, for the glorifying the riches of his sovereign grace and goodness (Eph. 1:5, 6). The decree of the means, includes the decree to create men, to permit them to fall, to recover them out of it through redemption by Christ, to sanctify them by the grace of the Spirit, and completely save them; and which are not to be reckoned as materially many decrees, but as making one formal decree; or they are not to be considered as subordinate, but coordinate means, and as making up one entire complete medium; for it is not to be supposed that God decreed to create man, that he might permit him to fall; nor that he decreed to permit him to fall, that he might redeem, sanctify, and save him; but he decreed all this that he might glorify his grace, mercy, and justice. And in this way of considering the decrees of God, they think they sufficiently obviate and remove the slanderous calumny cast upon them, with respect to the other branch of predestination, which leaves men in the same state when others are chosen, and that for the glory of God. Which calumny is, that according to them, God made man to damn him; whereas, according to their real sentiments, God decreed to make man, and made man, neither to damn him, nor save him, but for his own glory; which end is answered in them, some way or another. Again, they argue that the end is first in view, before the means; and the decree of the end is, in order of nature, before the decree of the means; and what is first in intention, is last in execution: now as the glory of God is the last in execution, it must be first in intention; wherefore men must be considered, in the decree of the end, as not yet created and fallen; since the creation and permission of sin, belong to the decree of the means; which, in order of nature, is after the decree of the end: and they add to this, that if God first decreed to create man, and suffer him to fall, and then, out of the fall chose some to grace and glory; he must decree to create man without an end, which is to make God to do what no wise man would; for when a man is about to do any thing, he proposes an end, and then contrives and fixes on ways and means to bring about that end: and it cannot be thought that the all-wise and only-wise God should act otherwise; who does all his works in wisdom, and has wisely designed them for his own glory, (Prov. 16:4 they think also that this way of conceiving and speaking of these things, best expresses the sovereignty of God in them; as declared in the ninth of the Romans; where he is said to will such and such things, for no other reason but because he wills them; and hence the objector to the sovereign decrees of God is brought in saying, "Why does he yet find fault? who hath resisted his will?" and the answer to it is taken from the sovereign power of the potter over his clay; to which is added, "What if God willing", &c. to do this or that, who has anything to say against it? he is accountable to none (Rom. 9:15, 19, 20, 22). And this way of reasoning is thought to suit better with the instance of Jacob and Esau, the children being not yet born, and having done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, (Rom. 9:11) than with supposing persons considered in predestination, as already created, and in the corrupt mass; and particularly it best suits with the unformed clay of the potter, out of which he makes one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour; on which Beza remarks, that if the apostle had considered mankind as corrupted, he would not have said, that some vessels were made to honour, and some to dishonour; but rather, that seeing all the vessels would be fit for dishonour, some were left in that dishonour, and others translated from dishonour to honour. They further observe, that elect angels could not be considered in the corrupt mass, when chosen; since they never fell, and therefore it is most reasonable, that as they, so those angels that were not chosen, were considered in the same pure mass of creatureship; and so in like manner men; to which they add the human nature of Christ, which is the object of election to a greater dignity than that of angels and men, could not be considered in the corrupt mass, since it fell not in Adam, nor never came into any corrupt state; and yet it was chosen out of the people, (Ps. 89:19) and consequently the people out of whom it was chosen, must be considered as yet not fallen and corrupt; and who also were chosen in him, and therefore not so considered. These are hints of some of the arguments used on this side of the question."

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_2/book2_02.htm

[frumanchu]

The fact that God was viewing then as still uncreated and before they had done good or evil precludes them being viewed within the covenant context of Adam. For their being viewed before their having done evil would mean by necessity their being viewed before they had done any good or evil in their covenant head.

I disagree on the necessity of that view.

[Iosias]

I disagree on the necessity of that view.

Fair enough :)

[bradfordl]

I'll see if I can explain better soon.
Hey Fru, just bumping so you don't forget me. I really do want to hear your perspective, and even that of a supra as to why either position is not anthropomorphism.

Asked my old retired PCA pastor which he held to, he said niether, God saves us, and the timing before time is immaterial. I don't like to press the old bird too much, so I left it alone.... couldn't disagree anyway.

Thanks,

Brad

[frumanchu]

Haven't forgotten you, Brad. Getting slammed at work, and swamped with preparations for Singing Valentines (http://www.singingvalentines.com) for Wednesday.

[bradfordl]

Bumpin' 4 Fru

[bradfordl]

Hey there Fru, I C U, so here I am doin' bump number 2!

Really want to hear an explanation that makes sense, and I think you're the one that can give it. Don't forget me.

[frumanchu]

I haven't forgotten you, brother :)

I will try very hard to respond this evening.

[frumanchu]

OK, after a little more study, I think I may understand this a little better. And I must have misunderstood the difference between these two positions.

I assumed that infra (after) laps (the fall) arianism meant that God made a decision after an event that He had not made before it. My bad.

If I'm correct now, the debate is between whether He determined who to save before He determined to ordain the fall, or after; all before the beginning of time.

Correct. We are talking about decrees from before Gen 1:1.

If this is right (set me straight if not), then I must say it appears to me that both positions are anthropomorphic. It is the application of sequence to God's planning, but I don't see how a being Who exists outside of - and unfettered by the limitations of - time can be characterized as experiencing sequential thought processes.

The problem, as I stated before, is in equating sequence with time. Sequence is a necessary aspect of time, but the inverse is not necessarily true. Time is all about relative measurement. There is no relative measurement with respect to God's thoughts. There is simply logical progression.

I'm sure the differences between supra and infra have all sorts of theological implications that I don't know about, as well as does the idea that both are wrong, but looking at the question in isolation, that's the best conclusion I can see. I can't conceive of God having a first then second thought before time existed. That would imply an exponential process or growth of His knowledge that would necessarily then imply a beginning, or at least a point at which He was less than He is, or became.

What you speculate upon is actually itself an anthropomorphism. It is not as though there were things already in existence which God did not know and then at some point progressively came to know. It is a matter simply of God conceiving of things in a logically progressive manner. He does not become anything more by engaging in logically progressive thought.

[bradfordl]

What you speculate upon is actually itself an anthropomorphism. It is not as though there were things already in existence which God did not know and then at some point progressively came to know. It is a matter simply of God conceiving of things in a logically progressive manner. He does not become anything more by engaging in logically progressive thought.
Fru, I'm disappointed. This is circular reasoning and anthropomorphic. You are incapable of knowing all things at once without "progression" of thought, so you utilize a very tenuous construct of progression outside of time to explain how God can do something you can't do, while still holding Him under the same constraints that you endure as a temporal being.

"I think in a logically progressive manner, therefore so must God, yet I know He existed before time, therefore time must not necessarily be an aspect of "progression" or "sequence"." You infer that idea, with no logical evidence for it's veracity.

Let me ask you 2 questions.

1. How can you prove your premise that sequence or progression can occur outside of the bounds of the passage of time? Please understand that I am referring to this definition of what time is: the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future through the present to the past. Not the measurement of same.

2. Why do you assume that God must think as we do, in linear, sequential, "logically progressive", steps?

I'm assuming there are theological implications of your infralapsarian stance that extrapolate beyond this discussion, as there would be from the supralapsarian position. My hope is that those implications aren't the impetus for incongruous reasoning.

Please assure me I'm wrong in that conjecture.

Thanks,

Brad