# Infralapsarian/Supralapsarianism



## Dan Dufek (Jan 4, 2006)

If one accepts the supralapsarian understanding of the creeds, is one by default a Hyper-calvinist?


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 4, 2006)

No.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 4, 2006)

Finally, Jeff and I agree on something.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 4, 2006)

I think Theodore Beza, William Perkins, William Twisse, Thomas Goodwin and Geerhardus Vos were among some well-known supralapsarian non-hyper-Calvinistic theologians. 

Phillip Johnson says:



> All the major Reformed Creeds are either explicitly infralapsarian, or else they carefully avoid language that favors either view. No major creed takes the supra position. (This whole issue was hotly debated throughout the Westminster Assembly. William Twisse, an ardent supralapsarian and chairman of the Assembly, ably defended his view. But the Assembly opted for language that clearly favors the infra position, yet without condemning supralapsarianism.)
> ...
> Infralapsarianism was affirmed by the synod of Dordt but only implied in the Westminster standards. Twisse, a supralapsarian, was the first president of the Westminster Assembly, which evidently decided the wisest course was to ignore the controversy altogether (though Westminster's bias was arguably infralapsarian) . The Westminster Confession, therefore, along with most of the Reformed Creeds, implicitly affirmed what the Synod of Utrecht (1905) would later explicitly declare: "That our confessions, certainly with respect to the doctrine of election, follow the infralapsarian presentation, [but] this does not at all imply an exclusion or condemnation of the supralapsarian presentation."
> ...
> Supralapsarianism is also sometimes wrongly equated with hyper-Calvinism. All hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians, though not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 4, 2006)

Herman Hoeksema was as well.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Finally, Jeff and I agree on something.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 4, 2006)

Gordon Clark and Robert Reymond (along with Hoeksema) defended what is called "modified" supralapsarianism, which is what I believe.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 4, 2006)

Berkhof also lists the following as Supralapsarians:

Franciscus Gomarus
Peter Martyr
Jerome Zanchius
Zacharias Ursinus
Jacobus Trigland
Gijsbert Voetius
Burmannus
Herman Witsius
Alexander Comrie


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 4, 2006)

Robert Reymond adds

Johannes Piscator 
William Whitaker

to the list.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Phillip Johnson says:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan Dufek (Jan 4, 2006)

I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan Dufek_
> I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.



Now that is funny!!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan Dufek_
> I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.



What does an _almost_ Arminian look like?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan Dufek_
> I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.



Actually, while it has been rightly noted that not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinistic, I would say that someone believing that infralapsarians even _approach_ Arminianism is a possible indication that that person's supralapsarianism very well may be _approaching_ hyper-Calvinism.

I'm honestly curious to hear more specifically what problems you have with the infra position, especially of a nature to make it seem to even _imply_ an Arminian-esque mindset on the nature of God's decrees.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dan Dufek_
> ...



I guess a Westminster Divine. (Or John Calvin)


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> The only order I see if what Ephesians 1 and 2 details. God has chosen us in Him from before the foundation of the world and we being dead in sins were quickened....



But what did He choose us _from_? Was it in light of our deadness in sins (already decreed by Him), or did He just choose to save some and condemn some without regard to sin, and then ordain the Fall as a means to justify the condemnation He had ordained?

As I see it, only the infra position does full justice to the biblical place of sin and its relationship to condemnation, and thus to God's justice in an ultimate sense as well.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> In other news, however, I am a dogmatic pre-umbilicalist. Adam had a belly-button prior to the Fall.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 5, 2006)

I'm with my fellow Italian Turretin on this one...


----------



## Dan Dufek (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dan Dufek_
> ...



I am not certain what you found funny, but I am glad I could provide some levity.


----------



## Dan Dufek (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> ...





Arminian is the sense of the overemphasis of the permissive will of God based on brute foreknowledge, rather than the fall being planned.


----------



## Dan Dufek (Jan 5, 2006)

A review of the Logical Order of the Decrees can be found here: 

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Decrees.htm 

The election from fallen man in the case of Infralapsarianism and the Arminian concept of Salvation based on foreseen faith are similar in nature and scope. Salvation is in response to "brute" foreknowledge as opposed to God's purpose in election.


----------



## Dan Dufek (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> ...




Arminius didn't take issue with Calvin, his issue was with the Supralapsarians, which of course spawned the remonstrance by Arminius and his followers. What is the difference between election from fallen man and foreseen faith? Both are based on Actual sin as opposed to Original sin, because you are dealing with man that has fallen already.


----------



## Dan Dufek (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Didn't Robert L. Dabney refer to this whole thing as a "Useless controversy"?
> 
> 
> ...




Were you dead in Actual or Original sin?


----------



## Dan Dufek (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> ...




How does the Infra position do full justice to the biblical place of sin?
Can you explain the origin of sin in relation to God's justice based on the infra position? 

In light of being dead in sin, is this Actual or Original sin?


----------



## Dan Dufek (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Are we dead in actual or original sin?
> 
> 
> ...




Actual sin would refer to God looking "down through the corridors of time" basing election on foreknowledge rather than on his purpose of election. 

As for judgment, I believe that scripture teaches that original sin condemns. Once a person is born they are born on equal footing so to speak as Adam. This was Jonathan Edward's view and it makes sense to me. The actual sin argument was fairly well developed by the semi-pelagians (not accusing you of being one!) 





I am not sure I see the dilineation between God's election from a group of fallen mankind, vs. this one goes to heaven etc.?? The first question that must be addressed is did God know the elect before the fall or after. 

I am aware that these things are not explicit in scripture and therefore we must be careful. I believe however that it is possible to have a conviction on this topic (even call one's self dogmatic) without crossing the line.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

I think the lists are incorrect.
Here is what I have always seen as the difference:

Supralapsarian (God Centered)

1) God's decree to glorify Himself, and then the means of doing it through an act of redeeming some creatures, and damning others. His glory comes first, the means to that end comes second, logically. So he made man to fall after the fact to carry out the plan.



Infralapsarian (Man Centered)

1) I think I will create a world today.
2) It might be more interesting if these creatures made in my image were able to sin against me.
3) Hmmm, should I save all ? or just a few.
4) I think I will save just a few
5) I will become a man to redeem those few.

Note that the Supralapsarianism is only 1 idea, because God's thought is immediate and not discursive anyway, so fallen finite minds need to put it in logical order to communicate in time.



[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan Dufek_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



So then you have absolutely no understanding of infralapsarianism.

Good. Back to hobby horse riding.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan Dufek_
> A review of the Logical Order of the Decrees can be found here:
> 
> http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Decrees.htm
> ...



These two items are about as similar as fire and water. Have you actually read anything about infralapsarianism? Like, say, the Confession?

The real difference is whether God's election has reference to actual people, or whether God elects people in the abstract.

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2440


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan Dufek_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Wow. Three posts in a row where you have absolutely no idea of who you are fighting. You might want to read Berkhof (or Calvin, or the Confession) on the Fall before you keep up with these statements.

Infralapsarianism contemplates God electing man after the decree for the Fall. The Fall is *Original* Sin, not mere actual sin. Of course it was actual for Adam, but that would be the same for supralapsarians as well. Since Original Sin has to be Actual for someone.


----------



## Dan Dufek (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dan Dufek_
> ...




Perhaps you could enlighten me? I thought this was a discussion board, so far you hurled insults my way and not added anything to the dialogue.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

Dan, it boils down to whether the decree to elect and reprobate came before (supra), or after (infra), the decree to ordain the fall. (logically as opposed to temporally)

Since Paul refers to "vessels created for destruction", I take it to imply that God has no obligation to save anyone, fall or not. Therefore the fall is a logical way to introduce the plan of redemtion through history.

But on the infra side, election seems to me like God is logically responding to the fall, as if it was an afterthought.


[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2006)

Dan,

You could start by running a search on supralapsarian(ism) or infralapsarianism, and you would see that this is not a new topic. That does not mean that there can be no new discussions of items - quite the contrary.

What has been unique about your raising of the issue is that you do not come within a country mile of describing the differences between supralapsarians and infralapsarians (or either position) accurately. To suggest that infralapsarians are "basically Arminian" is laughable at best. Calvin an Arminian? Owen? Thomas Boston? Dozens of Puritans? Virtually all of Princeton? Machen? Come on.

Instead of entering into serious discussion, you through out conclusiary statements, and conclusions that no reputable theology would give the time of day:



> true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.





> overemphasis of the permissive will of God based on brute foreknowledge, rather than the fall being planned



I thought that it was infralapsarians who penned _"This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man"_



> Arminius didn't take issue with Calvin



Well, I guess if you count chronology instead of theology (Calvin being dead). But there sure were a ton of infralapsarians at Dordt.



> What is the difference between election from fallen man and foreseen faith? Both are based on Actual sin as opposed to Original sin



Well, the difference is that between Biblical Calvinism and Arminianism. But since you see 95% of Calvinists (including Calvin) as being "almost" or "basically" Arminian, I guess you could say that. But anyone else examining the issue would not.



> Can you explain the origin of sin in relation to God's justice based on the infra position?



See WCF 6



> I believe that scripture teaches that original sin condemns.



So does every infra.

So far, I have seen no interest on your part in dialog, which requires at least an understanding of the opponent's position, or at least a willingness not to have falsehood shoved down his throat.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Dan, it boils down to whether the decree to elect and reprobate came before (supra), or after (infra), the decree to ordain the fall. (logically as opposed to temporally)
> 
> Since Paul refers to "vessels created for destruction", I take it to imply that God has no obligation to save anyone, fall or not. Therefore the fall is a logical way to introduce the plan of redemtion through history.
> ...





I would highly recommend Robert Reymond's treatment of the Supra/Infra discussion in his systematic.

The modified supra position is the only way to go In my humble opinion.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 5, 2006)

Fred already answered most of your questions better than I could, but I'll answer the one you directed at me as well as your first statement that I think reveals confusion at the most basic heart of the issue, and thus could most likely (and hopefully) lead to a better understanding, and thus mutual discussion, if clarified.



> _Originally posted by Dan Dufek_
> Arminian is the sense of the overemphasis of the permissive will of God based on brute foreknowledge, rather than the fall being planned.



The infra position has always held that the Fall was actively and sovereignly (rather than passively or based on mere foreknowledge) ordained. It simply sees the election of men to life and death as ontologically (meaning in a logical sense rather than a temporal one) happening _after_ or _in light of_ that ordination, so that death is never planned except as the consequence of sin, even though the ordination of the latter was just as active and sovereign in God's mind as was the former.



> _Originally posted by Dan Dufek_
> How does the Infra position do full justice to the biblical place of sin?
> Can you explain the origin of sin in relation to God's justice based on the infra position?
> 
> In light of being dead in sin, is this Actual or Original sin?



It does justice to the biblical place of sin because sin is the biblical cause of death (Rom. 6:23), but the supra position essentially switches that around, making sin no more than the necessary means or vehicle for God to carry out His already-existing purpose of death. So _technically_ you could say the supra position does in a sense fulfill Romans 6:23 - since it still makes sin the means to death - but not without a significant stretch, for it says, "The wages of sin is death," _not_ "The chosen vehicle for bringing about death will be...sin." Thus, in putting death and condemnation in their proper places in relation to sin, the infra position does justice to God's justice because He does not arbitrarily assign death apart from sin.

This is also why you will hear people speak of the Westminster Confession as implicitly infra: In section III.V, with my emphasis, "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, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, 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." Here the Divines stated that God's sovereign, pre-temporal election of some people to glory was done _out of his free grace_, and we know that while men may be _loved_ apart from already being in sin, men _cannot_ be _shown grace_ apart from already being in sin (unless of course we take the path of the Federal Vision crowd in speaking of grace apart from sin, thus distorting the Covenant of Works and thus Christ's meritorious work). Thus, since God's eternal election of some to glory was done _out of grace_, it must have been done _in light of_ their already-decreed state of sin.

Likewise, in secton VII of the same chapter, men's ordination to dishonor and wrath is never spoken of apart from their sin.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Dan, it boils down to whether the decree to elect and reprobate came before (supra), or after (infra), the decree to ordain the fall. (logically as opposed to temporally)







> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Since Paul refers to "vessels created for destruction", I take it to imply that God has no obligation to save anyone, fall or not. Therefore the fall is a logical way to introduce the plan of redemtion through history.



Of course God had no obligation to save anyone before or after He ordained the Fall - but before He ordained the Fall, what He also did not have was a reason to condemn anyone. Would you really tell an unbeliever who asked why in his current state he is on his way to hell that it was not ultimately because of his sin?



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> But on the infra side, election seems to me like God is logically responding to the fall, as if it was an afterthought.



But remember that infralapsarians understand the Fall to be _actively_ and _sovereignly_ ordained by God alone just as much as supralapsarians. But on the supra side, sin seems to me like God is logically responding to His desire for death, as if sin was a mere afterthought to that desire - as opposed to the most natural reading of Romans 6:23 as well as Westminster's chapter on election, particularly in light of it being done in grace, and grace being impossible without sin, as I discussed above.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

Chris, was Job being punished ? Yet it pleased God to cause him to suffer for some higher purpose. Now, of course, in a sublapsarian state we are under condemnation.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Chris, was Job being punished ? Yet it pleased God to cause him to suffer for some higher purpose. Now, of course, in a sublapsarian state we are under condemnation.



I would say your last sentence essentially holds the answer to your question. God using suffering and death in an already-fallen, sublapsarian world to accomplish secondary purposes along the way in addition to its ultimate purpose of judgment on sin is quite a different thing from death and condemnation existing without any notion of this thing called sin or its existence at all.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

Romans implies to me that God could create a vessel for destruction, without disclosing to us the reason, and we would have no right to question it.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Romans implies to me that God could create a vessel for destruction, without disclosing to us the reason, and we would have no right to question it.



But the more relevant question is whether or not He _has_ in fact disclosed it in any sense - which infralapsarians would answer in the affirmative, especially because of Romans 6:23 and God's election of us to glory being done in grace.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...





Reymond convinced me.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



So what is the modified
supra position ?


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 5, 2006)

*A post of mine from the previous thread (listed by Fred above):*



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Robert Reymond has a "modified" supralapsarian view (also developed by Gordon Clark and others. A detailed explanation can be found in his systematic theology. It works like this, God has then end result in mind (his goal) and works this goal out by means. The means are carried out in reverse order that they happen in time. This makes the order of decrees look like this:
> 
> 1: The election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God gracious mercy to the elect)
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2006)

As I said before, Reymond's "modification" makes no sense at all, unless it is viewed as infra. How can one elect men who are sinful, without sin in view? The decree to permit the Fall is #4, logically consequent to the decree to elect. It is logically impossible then, to view men as "sinful," because there has been no sin.

It might make some of you more comfortable - but Reymond is logically inconsistent to the point of incoherency here. I think that the classic supra scheme has much more validity. (And I think that the supra scheme has a great deal of respected adherents). Why I would want to abandon that for mish-mash is beyond me.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I would say your last sentence essentially holds the answer to your question. God using suffering and death in an already-fallen, sublapsarian world to accomplish secondary purposes along the way in addition to its ultimate purpose of judgment on sin is quite a different thing from death and condemnation existing without any notion of this thing called sin or its existence at all.



This is the point which convinced me to abandon supra for infra. God cannot justly condemn someone without sin. The Scriptures are clear that His wrath is a holy response to sin. Sin is a violation of His law. If reprobation occurs logically before the fall, then God has condemned holy creatures to hell. With the infra scheme, God's soveriegn choice from sinful humanity is in complete harmony with His just wrath against sin or free grace in Christ. There can be no wrath logically before the Fall against men.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 5, 2006)

Fred,

Have you read Reymond for yourself?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Fred,
> 
> Have you read Reymond for yourself?



I have, and I am completely unconvinced by his arguments.

Here is the problem for me: Reymond has a couple of odd views (this one, Eternal Sonship being two), but the vast bulk of his Systematic is extremely good, very helpful and a welcome modern edition.

I have to say that I am a bit annoyed with myself for always seeming to be so critical of Reymond because of these points that always come up. I find him usually careful and good and would recommend his Systematic with those cautions.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> As I said before, Reymond's "modification" makes no sense at all, unless it is viewed as infra. How can one elect men who are sinful, without sin in view? The decree to permit the Fall is #4, logically consequent to the decree to elect. It is logically impossible then, to view men as "sinful," because there has been no sin.
> 
> It might make some of you more comfortable - but Reymond is logically inconsistent to the point of incoherency here. I think that the classic supra scheme has much more validity. (And I think that the supra scheme has a great deal of respected adherents). Why I would want to abandon that for mish-mash is beyond me.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



hmmm.. . . . very good.

I must admit, this idea makes my view of supra questionable, and God out to be a transcendent Vlad Tepes who would make human torches to light His table feast for mere utility, and not reserve wrath for just condemnation.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Actually I must give credit to Fred for my "conversion." His simple question "reprobated to what?" forced me to change.

[Edited on 1-6-2006 by puritansailor]


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 5, 2006)

*I typed out a portion of Robert Reymond\'s treatment for this thread:*



> THE PURPOSING PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE RATIONAL MIND
> 
> ROBERT REYMOND
> 
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Fred,

I agree with your cautions for Reymond. However, I believe he is right on with his view of supra.

Interestingly enough, he states that others in history have adopted this modified view:

Jermoe Zanchius (possibly)
Johannes Piscator
Herman Hoeksema
Gordon H. Clark

I wouldn't generally put too much stock in material from Hoeksema, but he wasn't all bad!

Good discussion all.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 6, 2006)

Jeff,



> 1. For the praise for the glory of his grace God elected some sinful men (note: in order to reveal the glory of his grace, he views these men as transgressors of his law from the outset; how it is that they may be so viewed is determined by the fourth decree) to salvation in Christ (Eph. 1:3-4) and for the praise of his glorious justice reprobated the rest of sinful mankind.



Temporally, God did not create anything evil, He created all things Good, and ordained the fall. So, now that I have thought about this more, why would that order be different logically ?

If He purposed to create sinful men first, regardless of the fall, then that is condemnation before and without disobedience to His law. All the reprobate are indeed human torches to light His feast. And the fall seems like God is covering His tracks to make it seem excusable to us . .. . 

Even Satan was created good.

I am seriously considering Infra now unless you can answer this.

[Edited on 1-6-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Temporally, God did not create anything evil, He created all things Good, and ordained the fall.



It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are confusing decree with creation here. God did not ordaing the fall after he created, he ordained them both before the foundation of the world.

In the supra/infra debate, we must be extremely careful to remain the the "decree" and not confuse the execution of that decree.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> So, now that I have thought about this more, why would that order be different logically ?



Because a logical mind plans in a strictly logical fashion. We must be able to place a purpose behind the end, a reason for the madness (so to speak).

If we were to do this with the infra scheme, it would look something like this:

to create;
_but in order to do that, God must_ 
to permit the fall; 
_but in order to do that, God must_ 
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; 
_but in order to do that, God must_ 
to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect;
_but in order to do that, God must_ 
to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was purchased by Christ. 

There seems to be no logical fashion for _why_ God creates in this scheme, a topic the Bible is very clear on.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> If He purposed to create sinful men first, regardless of the fall, then that is condemnation before and without disobedience to His law.



This is a valid critique of the original version of supralapsarianism, but not the modified version as supported by Clark, Hoeksema, and Reymond. Again, the modified version looks like this:

1: The election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God 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.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> All the reprobate are indeed human torches to light His feast. And the fall seems like God is covering His tracks to make it seem excusable to us . .. .



Again, we cannot view this in time (which I think the old supra form is guilty of), but STRICTLY a logical form. God's thoughts are not chronological, they are ONLY logical. To put God's plan in a chronological form destroys God's immutability.

A logical form is based upon "In order to do that, I must do this, and in order to do that, I must do this...and on and on" Only when we use this method do we take the decree of God out of a chronological order and place it in the logical order.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I am seriously considering Infra now unless you can answer this.



I understand your concerns, but I truely believe that all of the infralapsarians critiques are answered in the modified supra form, not to mention that it does something that both supralapsarians and infralapsarians all admit needs to be done, and that is look at the decree of God_without respect to chronology_, but only logically.

Reymond also gives some devestating critiques of the infra form, but I have already spent a good deal of time typing out the previous section from his systematic.

Before changing views, I would recommend reading his treatment, and others. I have read most treatments I can get my hands on, and still think that the modified version is the only one that stands up to scrutiny.

As a side note, I long to purchase 
Twisse, William. The Riches of God´s Love unto the Vessells of Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessells of Wrath. 1653. 2 vols: 300, 262 large pp. Moderator of the Westminster Assembly. The largest presentation of Supralapsarianism. 1748. $75.

It is available form Curt Daniel's bookstore called Scholarly Reprints.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 6, 2006)

How can you logically have condemnation and wrath before sin?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 6, 2006)

How can you logically have sin and sinners before the Fall is even contemplated/decreed?

Answer: you can't!

Before God decreed the Fall, the concept of sin was not even in existence.

[Edited on 1/6/2006 by fredtgreco]


----------



## VanVos (Jan 6, 2006)

Hmmm I think Jeff is right at this point. We mustn't confuse how God works out His purposes *in time* with His decrees of *eternity past*. In other words when looking at this issue from the perspective of time we have infra. But looking at God's decrees before time we have supra. That why I opt for revised supra. God decrees all that will come to pass for the purpose of His self-glorfication. This included the plan of sin occuring *in time* so that His mercy and grace could be revealed through His Son.

VanVos


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> Hmmm I think Jeff is right at this point. We mustn't confuse how God works out His purposes *in time* with His decrees of *eternity past*. In other words when looking at this issue from the perspective of time we have infra. But looking at God's decrees before time we have supra. That why I opt for revised supra. God decrees all that will come to pass for the purpose of His self-glorfication. This included the plan of sin occuring *in time* so that His mercy and grace could be revealed through His Son.
> 
> VanVos



I'm not refering to time at all but logical order. Logically, you cannot have condemnation/wrath before sin. It's completely contrary to the holy nature of God. And as Fred pointed out, sin isn't even a factor until God decrees the Fall. Logically, there can be no decree of wrath against sin before a decree to allow sin to have wrath against.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> Hmmm I think Jeff is right at this point. We mustn't confuse how God works out His purposes *in time* with His decrees of *eternity past*. In other words when looking at this issue from the perspective of time we have infra. But looking at God's decrees before time we have supra. That why I opt for revised supra. *God decrees all that will come to pass for the purpose of His self-glorfication. This included the plan of sin occuring *in time* so that His mercy and grace could be revealed through His Son.*
> 
> VanVos



infralapsarians would affirm the bolded statement as well.


And honestly, thinking too hard about atemporal logical order unhinges my mind . . . cause I only know linear thought (discursive).

Wheels withis wheels.


----------



## VanVos (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VanVos_
> ...



Yes when viewed as sequential *events*. But in God's mind He can plan to create such a situation, Yes?


----------



## VanVos (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VanVos_
> ...



Yes, and as long as both sides keep affirming that statement there's not too much to worry about. I guess in my understanding the revised supra position best safeguards that statement. But I don't want to get too dogmatic about it.


[Edited on 1-6-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> How can you logically have sin and sinners before the Fall is even contemplated/decreed?



By making the fall the MEANS to something else!

God desired to redeem sinners (i.e. to elect and reporbate people), and therefore IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, he decrees the fall. 

[Edited on 1-6-2006 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 6, 2006)

I think that God can have a concept of something (i.e. a goal in mind, in this case sinners) before (logically that is) actually decreeing it to happen.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I think that God can have a concept of something (i.e. a goal in mind, in this case sinners) before (logically that is) actually decreeing it to happen.



This sounds to much like Man thinking. It doesn't sound like Omniscience.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



All sides would have to admit this though.

The infralapsarians would have to say that God had a concept of the fall before he actually decreed it. 

But on the other side of the coin, I believe that God's decrees are eternal, and therefore we aren't saying "at a certain time, God decreed xxx." His decrees all happen together, and that is why we must look at them logically, and not chronologically.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 6, 2006)

Here is the only Supra I am inclined to discuss (it is made by Toyota and has no theological affiliation whatsoever):


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 6, 2006)

*Some other noteable supralapsarians*

William Ames 
Samuel Rutherford
John Gill 
Abraham Kyper
Arthur Pink
Cornelius Van Til


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Here is the only Supra I am inclined to discuss (it is made by Toyota and has no theological affiliation whatsoever):


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> How can you logically have sin and sinners before the Fall is even contemplated/decreed?
> 
> Answer: you can't!
> ...



Exactly. Now, I _could_ understand one proposing that perhaps God contemplated sinners before contemplating the exact _means_ of the Fall, i.e. decreeing to save sinful, fallen man, and _then_ decreeing to have them fall _by means of eating forbidden fruit_. But to speak of a decree involving "sinful man" before any contemplation whatsoever of _a Fall of any kind_ (meaning a falling from righteousness) is just plain double-talk, or wanting to always have eaten the cake and always have had it too!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Read my post above. I think perhaps clarification would be helpful on what we each mean by "fall." When I use it (and I think when all or most of the other infralapsarians here use it), I am not _necessarily_ referring to the Fall exactly how it took place in the garden with the fruit and the woman and the serpent - but I definitely _am_ saying that there had to be a decree that there would be _a fall_ at all, meaning a falling from righteousness, because without a notion of a falling from righteousness there is no notion of sinfulness.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> The infralapsarians would have to say that God had a concept of the fall before he actually decreed it.



Not really.


----------



## CDM (Feb 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...





I believe herein lies the problem. I do not believe God sits and ponders. Nor does He think like a man. I don't think he "needs to see man in view of his sin" before he fashions the reprobate. Maybe His thought, actions, and decrees are all one in the same. I am not sure. There is no future, past or present for God and it seems we are trying to impose a future, past , and present onto his mind. 

It is hard for me to see any process within God. In His thinking, action, or will.

I am fully aware that the Infra/Supra debate is not my stong suit. I know this because when I do study the issues, I end up going nowhere whith this debate.

Considering what I've written I have a question for us newbie Supra/infralapsarians. Why MUST God see man "in view of sin" before he *decides* to create a reprobate? infralapsarians say this is because He is just. So, am I to understand that God would be unjust if he *decided* to make reprobates before His decree of the fall?


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 7, 2006)

The question is not if God thinks like a man (depending on exactly what you mean...both sides would agree to this) but does God think _logically_. The scriptures and the confession indication that logic is part of the image of God in man, and that our God is a logical God. The proper question is _How does a logical being think?_

That is what Reymond, Clark, et. al are trying to defend, and In my humble opinion they do so successfully.

Logic is not "man-made" thinking, it is God's way of thinking.


----------



## CDM (Feb 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> The question is not if God thinks like a man (depending on exactly what you mean...both sides would agree to this) but does God think _logically_. The scriptures and the confession indication that logic is part of the image of God in man, and that our God is a logical God. The proper question is _How does a logical being think?_
> 
> That is what Reymond, Clark, et. all are trying to defend, and In my humble opinion they do so successfully.
> ...



Yes, I definitely agree that "Logic is not "man-made" thinking, it is God's way of thinking." To clarify, I am unsure of how God's logic relates to sequential time or if it even does at all. In case you can't tell, my problems with this debate are very, very hard for me to explain. Even in conversation. I will think further of how to do it. 

For the record. If I have to chose, I lean toward Supra and/or the modified version.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 7, 2006)

Jeff, what would you say about my point above? In other words, when you speak of the "fall" with regard to the infra/supra issue, do you necessarily mean the falling from righteousness as a concept, or maybe just the historical Fall with the precise means of eating the forbidden fruit?

Also, what do other infralapsarians think of that issue? While we strongly hold that God decreed the occurence of _a fall_, or a definite falling from righteousness, before he decreed reprobation, might it be consistent with our position to acknowledge that He could have then decreed the particular means of that falling (eating the fruit), and thus the _historical_ event of the Fall, after decreeing reprobation?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 7, 2006)

*HOLD ON FOR A MINUTE!*

I visited a Calvary Chapel once and the Pastor said that Adam fell "...because God did not create Robots...."

Is that infralapsarian or supralapsarian?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Jeff, what would you say about my point above? In other words, when you speak of the "fall" with regard to the infra/supra issue, do you necessarily mean the falling from righteousness as a concept, or maybe just the historical Fall with the precise means of eating the forbidden fruit?
> 
> Also, what do other infralapsarians think of that issue? While we strongly hold that God decreed the occurence of _a fall_, or a definite falling from righteousness, before he decreed reprobation, might it be consistent with our position to acknowledge that He could have then decreed the particular means of that falling (eating the fruit), and thus the _historical_ event of the Fall, after decreeing reprobation?



Is God's wrath general or specific toward the reprobate? How do the reprobate incur God's wrath in eternity past without any sin logically preceding it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 7, 2006)

By the way everyone, this thread has been very helpful to me. I've read about this a few times but this definitely sharpens my understanding.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



I certainly agree we must be decreed to be in sin _before_ being decreed to be under judgment. The issue in light of that is whether or not _the decree for us to be in sin_ can have any true meaning without _the specific, particular event or act of sin_ itself being a part of it. In some ways those two aspects of "Fall" are somewhat analogous to the distinction between original sin and actual sin, although granted, with the latter distinction, both original sin and actual sin are already in-light of the specific initial act of sin. But even so, we still say that men would be guilty solely on the basis of original sin even without their own actual sin. So I guess what I'm wrestling with is whether or not God can logically and meaningfully (not temporally) decree that we _will_ in fact fall, without yet decreeing which specific act sin we will initially commit to do so.

Part of me is saying that doesn't ultimately make any sense, and part of me is not really sure how to view it yet, honestly.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Let's ask it another way. Does God keep an account of our sins? If He is just, and judges us according to our works, then logically, there must be some actually forseen (decreed) sin before God can justly reject people to His wrath. There's logicaly no sin a without a Fall. Hence, the infra position best defends the justice of God. Otherwise, as Mark noted above, God is lighting reprobate human torches and ordaining the Fall to cover His tracks regarding the reprobate.

[Edited on 2-8-2006 by puritansailor]


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 8, 2006)

Chris, 
I will have to try to answer your questions (as best I can!) later on today (as I am currently at work). For now, I would like to post this MOST interesting section from Calvin´s work _The Eternal Predestination of God_ (p. 123-124). Please note the underlined sections, and how they directly relate to the infra/supra debate. The question to ask while reading this is "œDoes God in His decree *find* the rebrobate worthy of reprobation, or does He *make* them worthy?" 


> There is another objection of the same chaff which Pighius raises against my following published sentiments: "I deny that the reprobate are distinguished and separated from the elect by any respect of God to the merits of the latter; because the grace of God makes them worthy of His adoption of them, it does not find them worthy" (as Augustine frequently remarks). In another place I thus express myself: "I deny that any injury is done to the reprobate by their reprobation, because they deserve eternal destruction." Here Pighius spreads out his wings in tumultuous exultation, noisily exclaiming that I neither understand myself nor my own sentiments, nor at all remember what I have myself before said. But so far am I from thinking it necessary to spend many words in my defence, that I can hardly bring myself to employ even a few words for that object. I will observe, then, that when God prefers some to others, when He chooses some and passes by others, the difference is not made on the ground of worthiness or unworthiness, either in the one or in the other. Therefore, it is false to say that the reprobate are worthy [of] eternal destruction. If, therefore, in the former case, there is no comparison of men with each other, nor any connection of worthiness with the reward of eternal life; in the latter case, there is certainly no proof that the condition of all men is equal with reference to the election of God. Add to this, that Augustine, having asserted in one part of his writings that no man ever failed of salvation who was worthy of it, qualifies this expression in his subsequent recapitulations, carefully excluding all idea of works and referring all acceptable worthiness to the free grace calling of God.
> Pighius, however, still pushes on his violent opposition, alleging that if what I teach be true, that those who perish were ordained unto everlasting death by the eternal will of God, of which the reason is imperceptible to us, the persons so ordained are made worthy of everlasting death, not found so. I reply that three things are here to be considered: 1. That the eternal predestination of God, by which He decreed, before the Fall of Adam, what should take place in the whole human race and in every individual thereof, was unalterably fixed and determined. 2. That Adam himself, on account of his departure from God, was deservedly appointed to eternal death. 3. And lastly, that in the person of Adam, thus fallen and lost, his whole future offspring were also eternally condemned; but so eternally condemned that God deems worthy the honour of His adoption all those whom He freely chose out of that future offspring. Of these mighty things I have neither dreamed any part, nor fabricated any part. Nor am I called upon, in the present instance, to prove each particular, for I consider that I have most effectually done that already. All I shall do is to wash off from myself the calumny with which my opponent has soiled me, when he says that these things can in no way be made to harmonise or consist with each other. Whereas, what I have ever invariably taught, and still teach at this day, is, that whenever election is the subject of discussion, the great point to be maintained, from first to last, is that all the reprobate are justly left under eternal death, because they died and were eternally condemned in Adam; also, that those perish justly who are by nature the children of wrath; and finally, that, therefore, no one can have cause to complain of the too great severity of God, seeing that all men bear, in themselves and in their individual persons, the guilt and desert of death eternal.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I certainly agree we must be decreed to be in sin _before_ being decreed to be under judgment.



Chris,

With respect, I still think there is confusion between plan (decree) and execution (creation/providence). Certainly in time, we must be fallen in order for God to send us to hell, but this is not the case with the plan. Not that this necessarily proves the point, but I think the quote from Calvin that I provided addresses this issue.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> How do the reprobate incur God's wrath in eternity past without any sin logically preceding it?



If this is the line of thinking you wish to take, then I have a similar question for you as an infralapsarian. 

How do the elect incur God's favor in eternity past without any imputed righteousness logically preceding it?

The infra scheme places the choosing of the elect BEFORE the decree to provide salvation, and therefore there is no basis (outside the Good pleasure of God ALONE) to determine who will be elect. I argue with Calvin, that it is the same with reprobation.

The Infra Scheme:
1. Create 
2. Permit Fall 
3. Elect some, pass over the rest 
4. Provide salvation for elect 
5. Call elect to salvation

Rom 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 
Rom 9:12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." 

Jacob didn't do good, Esau didn't do evil. What's left? The will of God.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Hence, the infra position best defends the justice of God.



I´m not trying to pick on you Patrick, but is it just for God (under the Infra scheme) to elect some sinful men without any basis (i.e. the righteousness of Christ, which has not been decreed yet) to do so?

It seems to me that this would destroy the justice of God (following your line of thinking) just as much as reprobating people without a basis for doing so.


----------



## Peter (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



I lean towards the infra scheme. Jeff, God elects people because of his free and sovereign love. He has no obligation to do so; it is purely because of his merciful, unmerited good pleasure. God condemns people because of sin. If the supra scheme teaches that it is the righteousness of Christ that constrains God's elective decrees and not vice versa I am DEFINITELY NOT Supra.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Peter, I think you misunderstood my post. The supra scheme in no way "œconstrains God´s elective decrees" by the righteousness of Christ. My post was arguing that if the infra scheme wishes to defend the justice of God by placing the decree to fall before reprobation, then to be consistent; they should place the righteousness of Christ before election. Reprobation without a grounds for doing so, and election without grounds for doing so are equally "œunjust" of God, if you follow that line of reasoning (which I do not). Therefore, the infra scheme does not "œdefend the justice of God" against the supralapsarian scheme, because it commits the same "œerror" that the supra scheme is charged with.

I believe that God´s election and reprobation are both merely of his good will and pleasure alone. He has no obligation to elect or reprobate.

I agree with Calvin where he says the reprobate "œare made worthy of everlasting death, not found so."


----------



## Kaalvenist (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I´m not trying to pick on you Patrick, but is it just for God (under the Infra scheme) to elect some sinful men without any basis (i.e. the righteousness of Christ, which has not been decreed yet) to do so?
> 
> It seems to me that this would destroy the justice of God (following your line of thinking) just as much as reprobating people without a basis for doing so.


1. Election is not an act of justice, but of sovereignty (God did not have to elect anyone; He did so of His own good pleasure).

2. Reprobation must be distinguished into preterition and predamnation. Preterition, or non-election, is as sovereign as election, and consists solely in God's "passing by" of people in His decree of election. Predamnation is God's decree to condemn men for sin, and is therefore an act of pure justice.

3. The historic supralapsarian scheme recognized this. It posited the order of the divine decrees as:

(1) Decree of election/preterition
(2) Decree to create
(3) Decree to permit the fall -- This exposes all men to sin, and exposes those under preterition to eternal wrath (coextensive with decree of predamnation)
(4) Decree to send Christ to redeem the elect from their sinful state

4. Reymond's modified supralapsarianism is even more nonsensical than the historic position. In historic supra, you have God electing and passing by non-entities -- men who have not even yet been decreed to be created, and hence not even real men. But in Reymond's modified view, men are regarded as sinful before the decree that men should be fallen into a state of sin.

5. Supralapsarianism seems to consist solely in philosophical musings (as well as reading too much into Romans 9:19-23), whereas infralapsarianism actually does justice to the biblical text. What does it mean to say that men are "elected in Christ," or are "chosen to salvation," if the decree to elect is not a decree to redeem men by Christ's salvation (making the decree of election and the decree to save men by Christ essentially the same decree), from a previously-decreed fall?

6. Both views historically recognize that the divine "decrees" are actually one single decree; they simply attempt to deduce the order of that one decree.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Good question. I'll have to think about it for awhile.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Chris,

I am curious to get your thoughts on WCF Chapter III:



> II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,[4] yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]
> 
> 4. I Sam. 23:11-12; Matt. 11:21-23
> 5. Rom. 9:11, 13, 16, 18



Does this section teach that God can indeed have a concept of something without actually decreeing it?


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 8, 2006)

Herman Bavinck on Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism:



> The supralapsarian and infralapsarian interpretation of the decree:
> 
> (1) Points of agreement. Both agree:
> 
> ...


----------

