Supralapsarianism...the unassailable logic

[moonbeam]

.
Supralapsarianism...the unassailable logic

The One God, the Triune God, purposed in the conception of the created order...and prior to its inception...that specific individual persons, both angelic and human, would be appointed to the facilitation of darkness…and that light was never intended nor appointed to be their final estate.

For so it seemed good in His sight.

He has the right...Who can deny it?


Jesus Christ was the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (creation). The extent of this efficacious scope was necessary, being required for Adam...the first man whom God created out of the dust of the earth.

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

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world - [Rev 13:8]

The first man Adam was made out of the dust of the earth...where the scripture below reads “of the same lump”...it can only be in reference to that dust (clay) of which God used to fashion Adam, or, alternatively, of Adam himself after God breathed life into him, at which point Adam became a living soul (there are no other alternatives).

In either case, the fact that the scope of the blood of Jesus Christ was envisaged to be efficacious from before the foundation of the world establishes that Adam was the intended beneficiary.

That Adam walked and conversed with God in the Garden of Eden, prior to Eve being created, establishes that the clay being referenced “of the same lump” (being Adam) is envisaged in a state of innocence without sin. This position of innocence or neutrality is logically sustainable on the grounds that the divergence into two distinctive descriptors (honour and dishonour) proceed from a single common source.

Hence the logical necessity is unavoidable that the decree of God appointing individual persons, in their final estate, to either election (light) or reprobation (darkness) is prior to the fall of man into sin, and therefore based solely on His sovereign will and good pleasure to glorify His name, in the creation, through the interplay of light and darkness...and so it seemed good in His sight.

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory - [Romans 9:21-23]
.

 

[GQ Chris]

This is too theologically complex to ponder and discuss sober.

 

[AMR]

Romans 9:21-23 (NKJV)
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,

At first glance it may seem that the verses above teach that God has purposefully created vessels of wrath for destruction. In other words, vessels of wrath (the reprobate) that are going to be sent to Hell (for destruction) were created by God to demonstrate His own power so that the riches of His glory bestowed on vessels of mercy (the elect) can be made known. This is a favorite view of the supralapsarian.

This supralapsarian view begs a very important question. If God has purposefully created vessels of wrath for destruction, then how do we reconcile this view with the Scriptures clear teaching by our Lord’s own words that Hell was created for the devil and his angels?

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41

If the supralapsarian view is correct, why does not our Lord claim that Hell was created for the devil, his angels, and vessels of wrath?

If our Lord was speaking the truth, and of course He was, it simply cannot be that the eternal purpose of God was to purposefully create from a lump of clay that was not already fallen, vessels of wrath.

Moreover, the Romans passage speaks of the riches of God’s glory on vessels of mercy. Why is mercy needed if this lump of clay is unfallen? Grace is getting what you don’t deserve; mercy is not getting what you do.

So we are now faced with two dilemmas from the supralapsarian’s classic view. Their view is that the lump of clay is an unfallen mass of humanity out of which God creates the reprobate and the elect. Hence, God purposefully creates sinful creatures. God then is the proximate author (not the antecedent author) of their sin, contrary to Scripture (e.g., James1:13). Secondly, God is bestowing mercy on the elect, yet the lump of clay is not yet fallen, so mercy used in Romans 9:23 must mean something very different than we have been taught by Scripture.

Could it perhaps be the case that Romans 9:21-23 teaches us that God has the right of how to choose to disposition creatures who are sinners? That is, the lump of clay God is working with is a fallen mass of humanity. God is desiring to demonstrate both His mercy and His wrath, for both are attributes of God. That is His right and Paul questions anyone who would dare ask God about His rights as sovereign. The verses teach us one of the reasons God has allowed sin: to display His wrath, for without sin there is no wrath, without wrath there is no revelation of the fullness of the glory of God.

God puts Himself on display in the Scriptures, allowing and enduring sin, to reveal not only His lovingkindness but also His holy wrath in judgment and punishment. This is required for God to be fully revealed of God. God could not possess the attribute of wrath if this attribute had no function.

The verses also teach us that God allows and endures sin: to demonstrate His power to judge sin and to conquer all attempts to conquer Him (through salvation, the victory of Christ).

Let’s look closer at Romans 9:22-23. In Romans 9:22, in the phrase vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," the word prepared (katartizo) is in the passive voice, which would indicate that their preparation was not active, but passive. Note here that the agent who prepared them is not named. It is passive. Naturally, this agent must be God from the context, but it is not that God made them sinners. Instead it is that they are sinners and God is displaying His holy wrath by fitting them for destruction. God here is not pre-ordaining the destruction of these vessels from the passive context in the Greek. This view also aligns perfectly with the Westminster Confession on this aspect:

• WCF, Chapter III
  Of God's Eternal Decree
  
  III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
  
  V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.
  
  VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.

Carefully note the distinctions between predestination and foreordaining. Predestination is an active act of God whereby He purposefully chooses some to election. Foreordination is an act of God from eternity determining the certain future existence of all events of every type that will come to pass. Foreknowledge recognizes the certain future existence of events, while foreordination makes them certainly future. Note from the WCF, the passive passing by (yet active in the sense of so willing the same) of the reprobate.

 

[JM]

God created a mass of humanity He knew He would never save.

 

[stenerson]

It's always been my understanding that the "same lump" was the lump of fallen, sinful, rebellious humanity. God's justice, righteousness and power is glorified by reaping judgement and vengeance on those deserving judgement and vengeance. His mercy is also displayed by having mercy on those deserving judgement and vengeance.

 

[stenerson]

Is Supralapsarianism the technical term for double predestination?

 

[twin1954]

I am supralapsarian in my understanding of the Scriptures but deem it to be about as important as having an eschatological view, it is of little importance. I am more concerned with the Gospel and preaching it than with intellectual exercises.

 

[JM]

Is Supralapsarianism the technical term for double predestination?

Source: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/superinfra.html

The basic schema of infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism may be displayed as follows:

Infralapsarianism
1. the decree to create the world and (all) men
2. the decree that (all) men would fall
3. the election of some fallen men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)
4. the decree to redeem the elect by the cross work of Christ
5. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect

Supralapsarianism (historical)
1. the election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)
2. the decree to create the world and both kinds of men
3. the decree that all men would fall
4. the decree to redeem the elect, who are now sinners, by the cross work of Christ
5. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to these elect sinners

Supralapsarianism (modified)

1. the election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful
mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect)
2. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners
3. the decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ
4. the decree that men should fall
5. the decree to create the world and men

 

[Blood]

I am supralapsarian in my understanding of the Scriptures but deem it to be about as important as having an eschatological view, it is of little importance. I am more concerned with the Gospel and preaching it than with intellectual exercises.

Do you realise that you have just junked theological discussion out of hand as being of little importance?
Do you need a chair so you can climb back on your high horse cause you seem to have fallen of?
Give us a break, do you think your the only one working at the coalface.

 

[AMR]

Is Supralapsarianism the technical term for double predestination?

No.

See:
http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

 

[moonbeam]

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

The issue in the discourse, in its initial stage, is not to establish a moral basis where by Gods actions are to be justified [not at all]...but rather to establish the right...Gods intrinsic and inalienable sovereign right to create and dispose of the works of His own hands as He sees fit...period...This inalienable right is the sole property of He who is the only self existent being.

That is the sole purpose of this portion of the discourse...it is completely unconcerned with establishing something on a moral paradigm whatsoever... it is solely concerned with establishing the unassailable sovereign right.


Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? - [Romans 9:19-21]


It needs to be stated quietly but clearly at this point...if you say “Yes of course…but…"

Than you need to begin reading again from “Thou wilt say than unto me….”

Because you have missed Paul’s point.


(Edited on 15/02/2024 to remove some very poorly chosen wording... my apologies for any misrepresentation of the moral nature of God)

 

[twin1954]

Do you realise that you have just junked theological discussion out of hand as being of little importance?
Do you need a chair so you can climb back on your high horse cause you seem to have fallen of?
Give us a break, do you think your the only one working at the coalface.

Do you realise that you have just junked theological discussion out of hand as being of little importance?
Do you need a chair so you can climb back on your high horse cause you seem to have fallen of?
Give us a break, do you think your the only one working at the coalface.

No what I have done is realize the value of speculation. I discuss theology all the time, every time I preach as a matter of fact.

We simply aren't told the order of the decrees so we must speculate and to me speculation is opinion and opinion is of little value.

Many tend to ride horses. Some ride the horse of prophecy, some the confessions others one horse or another. I tend to ride the horse of the Gospel.

 

[abacabb3]

This topic is above my paygrade and I do think that generally it is made to answer a question that is not terribly relevant. Just looking at JM's post in Infra verses Supra makes me wonder what really are the crucial distinctions between the two. I think, if I understood him right, what AMR said makes the most sense:

Could it perhaps be the case that Romans 9:21-23 teaches us that God has the right of how to choose to disposition creatures who are sinners? That is, the lump of clay God is working with is a fallen mass of humanity.

If I am following you, your view is that God's lump of clay is by default defective, sinful clay. So, God in His mercy can form some of that lump into a vessel of mercy, with its sin removed. The rest of the vessels are formed as is, without the nature of the clay changed. Then, come the day of judgment where God only wants perfected vessels, he destroys all the ones that he formed that were not perfected.

Hence, God is not the cause of the defect within the vessels destined for wrath, He merely does not show them mercy. Come the time of judgment, he then destroys the vessels that are destined for wrath because they are of no redeeming value.

 

[AMR]

The fallen lump of clay is per the decree of the fall of Adam as understood by the infra view. Hence it is a fallen lump to be molded by God as He sees fit to do. At judgment, the reprobate are consigned to eternal punishment (not "destroyed" as annihilationism would claim).

The infra vs. supra views should not be a divisive issue for the Reformed.

I don't know how to reconcile them. I think it begins by recognizing we are trying to get inside God's mind perhaps more than what he has revealed to us in Scripture. OR...that we have not yet properly divided the Word. Both views cannot be right at the same time and in the same sense unless we want to violate the law of contradiction.

For me there must be balance between God's sovereignty and his justice. God elected because he is sovereign. Was that act an act of grace or an act of love? I believe the act of election to salvation was an act of grace (bestowing favor upon those that do not merit favor). I presuppose that the Fall of mankind also reveals God's attributes properly working in conjunction with one another. Therefore if the lump of clay is an unfallen mass of humanity out of which God equally elects and reprobates then his election is an election primarily of love, not grace. God's subjective grace presupposes the objects of that grace do not merit his gracious act. Yet if these objects are an unfallen mass of humanity, wherein is their guilt that would warrant God's grace? Moreover, how does God’s justice appear to be balanced with his sovereignty in this case?

I am going to ramble a bit now, thinking aloud, if you will, to explore my thinking.

The crux of the issue in my mind comes down to the distinction between grace and love. having said that, I believe God's attributes are qualities that inhere in the being of God. In other words, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. Indeed, God's attributes are identical with his essence.

So when we are discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, gracious, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other. When we consider the simplicity of God (that He is without constituent parts), we find that God and His attributes are a unified wholeness. God’s attributes are not so many parts that comprise the composition of God, as God is not composed of different parts (as are His creatures). Nor can God’s attributes be thought as something that is added to God’s being, for God is eternally perfect.

When the Scriptures say God is gracious, it means that graciousness is an aspect of God’s being, God seen from a particular aspect/perspective—all of God in that aspect/perspective—and so on for every Scriptural statement about God. Thus, when the Scriptures say that God is gracious it means all of God—God in every respect—is gracious. As another example, when speaking of the powers of God we must understand that power is not about choices per se, power is about ability, capacity, authority, and right.

So perhaps the solution is to realize that while election out of an unfallen mass of humanity (the supra position) is an election of love, that attribute of love cannot be separated from God's attribute of grace, thus the election is also one of grace, which the Scripture clearly states, i.e., by grace we are saved.

1. Can I then assert that every loving act of God is also a gracious act of God?
2. Likewise, is every gracious act of God also a loving act of God?

I am nearly convinced by my own words until I come to the logical conclusion of such a position—that God not only positively elects, but that he also positively reprobates with the same ultimate ends (equal ultimacy). In effect I am adopting a position that God does not pass over the guilty, which he would if the lump of clay was already fallen, but that God is now going out of his way, so to speak, to positively reprobate persons that are not yet fallen, who now must irrevocably so fall, per God's decree. Now I can accept that God, as Sovereign can do what he pleases to do and that whatever he does is not in conflict with his being, his attributes. But, in this view, I must be able to reconcile the actions of God with his teachings from Scripture, else I am attaching myself to very different gospel. May it never be!

So here is where I bump up against John 15:19, “If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world--therefore the world hates you.”.

The world in this verse is clearly a world described by Jesus in the immediately preceding verse as a world that hates God: "If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you..

I see this as a strong indicator that the lump of clay God was working with was already fallen. I realize that the word world is used in many ways in the Scripture, and it is the subject of much study by the Reformed, especially when we consider verses like John 3:16 with respect to limited atonement.

Now the Reformed have a biblical answer to the word, world in John 3:16. Firstly, the Greek is clear that whosoever believeth means everyone who believes, pas ho pisteuon, a very specific group of believers. I believe the NRSV renders the verse correctly: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. NRSV

We see this even more clearly in John 3:18: Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. NRSV

Thus it seems clear to me that God did not intend to make salvation available for everyone, but instead to save only the believers. Hence the foundation for limited atonement is established.

At a first reading, the word world in John 3:16 might be interpreted to mean all persons, so that God’s intended to save every person, or perhaps make salvation at least possible for every person. For me and the Reformed this view reads too much explicitness into the verse. Its plain reading is that Christ came to save the world. For some to say that the verse teaches that God was making salvation possible is to read far more into the text than we have warrant to do, especially given the numerous passages that teach the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement to justify the elect before God.

Which brings us to the word, world, kosmos, or order, regular disposition and arrangement, i.e., the entire order of things, the planet. If we look at the word metaphorically, we could see how it could be intended to mean all the world’s population. But, careful examination of John 3, verses 16, 17, and 19 shows that this metaphorical interpretation cannot be applied. In John 3:17, we read:

"Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

And in John 3:19: And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.

Both verses do not refer to the world’s population, but to the planetary realm where people exist.

Could John be using, in John 3:16, 17, 19, two very different meanings of world in the same context? If we look at John 1:10, he clearly does so: He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. I maintain that no proper methods of interpretation can justify that the verses in question in John 3 support the view that he is employing two very different meanings of the word, world. The kosmos in these passages of John cannot mean the population of the world, or every person.

What do I conclude, then, based upon the immediate explorations above? First, that the world means creation, the world order of things. God intended to provide redemption for his creation. His intent was to do this using the remnant, the elect, as taught in

Ephesians 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Colossians 1:13 He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Colossians 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Colossians 1:16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers--all things have been created through him and for him.
Colossians 1:17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Colossians 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything.
Colossians 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Colossians 1:20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

Romans 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God;
Romans 8:20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
Romans 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; (NRSV)

Returning to John 1:10, I believe that the meaning in the entire passage, John 1:1-18, is referring to the orbit of Genesis 1, and teaches that Jesus Christ was sent to renew all of God’s creation—what the Fall had corrupted—not just mankind, but the entire creation of God. Furthermore, I am confident of this interpretation given the language of John 3, e.g., light, world, darkness, as it echoes Genesis 1 and therefore does not refer just to mankind.

I and the Reformers before me conclude from this that nothing in John 3 is not teaching a general redemption, a ransom for all persons, but a limited atonement.

And finally (whew!) I conclude that John 15:18-19 speaks of a fallen creation, not one that is not yet fallen, as the supra position would hold, with respect to the lump of clay God is electing out of in his grace.

 

[moonbeam]

.
The supralapsarian position asserts that God decreed which particular persons would be glorified and reprobated prior to the fall of man...it is a matter of coherency...a matter of logic...a matter of sovereign right...(not morality)

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: - [Isaiah 46:10]

This signature mark of Gods sovereignty is phrased in an interesting way "declaring the end from the beginning".

Why the end from the beginning?

Is it not so that man being a rational creature made in the image of God, systematically approaches the construction of his own house?...preparing first the foundation and then building in logical sequence, the walls following the foundations, so as to support the roof which follows and so on until the house is complete as envisaged?

The rational architect has the completed house envisaged in his mind prior to construction...for the completed house is the very purpose of the construction...that is the coherent point of logic upon which the supralapsarian position is posited.

The actual material means and methodology employed to facilitate the construction to completion, as envisaged and intended by the architect, are all, without exception, subordinated and subserviant to that sole, intended, final purpose being realised.

The supralapsarian asserts that God (the Father) is the architect of all creation and that His express purpose in creation is to glorify His name, in the redemption and union of His elect children, in, and by, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and in the just punishment of the reprobate for their sins...Eternal life and Eternal death.

The supralapsarian position is a teleological paradigm - the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes.

.

 

[stenerson]

.
The supralapsarian position asserts that God decreed which particular persons would be glorified and reprobated prior to the fall of man...it is a matter of coherency...a matter of logic...a matter of sovereign right...(not morality)

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: - [Isaiah 46:10]

This signature mark of Gods sovereignty is phrased in an interesting way "declaring the end from the beginning".

Why the end from the beginning?

Is it not so that man being a rational creature made in the image of God, systematically approaches the construction of his own house?...preparing first the foundation and then building in logical sequence, the walls following the foundations, so as to support the roof which follows and so on until the house is complete as envisaged?

The rational architect has the completed house envisaged in his mind prior to construction...for the completed house is the very purpose of the construction...that is the coherent point of logic upon which the supralapsarian position is posited.

The actual material means and methodology employed to facilitate the construction to completion, as envisaged and intended by the architect, are all, without exception, subordinated and subserviant to that sole, intended, final purpose being realised.

The supralapsarian asserts that God (the Father) is the architect of all creation and that His express purpose in creation is to glorify His name, in the redemption and union of His elect children, in, and by, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and in the just punishment of the reprobate for their sins...Eternal life and Eternal death.

The supralapsarian position is a teleological paradigm - the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes.

.

I hope I won't have to pass a quiz on what you just said before they allow me within the pearly gates.

 

[sdowney717]

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”

16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”

18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

You who are saved, you have received mercy from God to be saved. To be in need of mercy to be saved requires God to be merciful to sinful fallen creatures. So yes, God is working with fallen lumps of clay to make pots according to His own choosing.
Since we are naturally born as fallen creatures, we also sin and are doomed to destruction unless God chooses beforehand us to receive mercy to be saved.

Peter speaking to those who are saved, says at one time they had not received mercy, but now have received mercy.

9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

"Called out of darkness", so we were all once estranged and all enemies of God, natural born men. But God chose beforehand from before the creation of the world, who He would choose to be merciful towards, and who He would leave in their fallen condition. And in His fullness of time for your life on this earth, He reveals to you Jesus Christ as His Son and so you believe in Christ.

Jesus acknowledges this choosing of God of certain persons that God has given to Himself as believers in Christ.
John 17
17 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.

Scripture, God's own words are ripe with the teaching that we are chosen of God to be saved. Which means for the Glory of His name, He chooses who will be with Him, so that no flesh can boast in His presence. No man can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven.
James 1, salvation is the GIFT of God, do not be deceived about this, HE brought us forth Himself by His own will, and this was not of ourselves being the gift of God.

16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

 

[rnmomof7]

That is my doctrinal position ...I can not understand how others do not see the logic and consistency of it

 

[moonbeam]

I don't know how to reconcile them. I think it begins by recognizing we are trying to get inside God's mind perhaps more than what he has revealed to us in Scripture. OR...that we have not yet properly divided the Word. Both views cannot be right at the same time and in the same sense unless we want to violate the law of contradiction.

I have entered under this dark roof
As fearlessly as an honoured son
Enters his fathers house

Leonard Cohen lyrics here capture the terrain... as do your comments above.

I have been a long time wondering in the wilderness.... I thought it would be good (for myself and perhaps others) to sharpen our blades.

"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." (Pov 27:17 KJV)