# Supra- or Infra-??? Yes, it is time to do it again!



## Romans922

I thought it would be cool to do a poll on this, I don't think we have done that yet. Also, why?

Also, I was thinking today as I was reading Reymond for class, to help us understand this can we learn anything from God's election of angels?


----------



## Romans922

I like this new option on polls, there is an option where we are able to choose more than one answer. That is pretty neat for some poll questions!


----------



## turmeric

I know we did this before but it might be hard to find now. It's in the Archives, I'm sure. And I think my position's changed.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Infra, mainly because of Turretin.


----------



## RamistThomist

I used to say supra because it got infralapsarians mad. I don't know, though. I am tempted to cop out and say that there is good evidence for both sides.


----------



## Civbert

Supralapsarian.


----------



## Arch2k

Supralapsarian 

Some notable supralapsarians in the past:

Theodore Beza
Franciscus Gomarus
Peter Martyr
Jerome Zanchius
Zacharias Ursinus
Jacobus Trigland
Gijsbert Voetius
Burmannus
Herman Witsius
Alexander Comrie 
Johannes Piscator 
William Whitaker
Samuel Rutherford
Thomas Goodwin
William Twisse
Jermoe Zanchius (possibly)
Herman Hoeksema
Gordon H. Clark
William Perkins
Gerhardus Vos
Cornelius Van Til

See this thread, this thread, and this thread for helpful discussions on this issue.

See THE PREDESTINATION AND SUPRALAPSARIANISM HOMEPAGE for more resources on the subject.

By the way, has anyone had the privelage of reading the following?:

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.


----------



## Arch2k

See here for Robert Reymond's helpful section on the order of the decrees and here for Louis Berkhof's helpful section in his systematic theology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Infra, because infralapsarians ROCK!


----------



## Civbert

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Supralapsarian
> 
> Some notable supralapsarians in the past:
> 
> ...Cornelius Van Til



Wow! No kidding?!?


----------



## Herald

Supra, because I believe it is more consistent with God's omniscience.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> Infra, because infralapsarians ROCK!



Supra is _way_ cooler than infra!! 

Even if Van Til is one.


----------



## Herald

Civbert said:


> Supra is _way_ cooler than infra!!
> 
> Even if Van Til is one.



Anthony, does this mean I'm cool! Dude, I like that!


----------



## RamistThomist

I am leaning towards Supra, still can't say.


----------



## Me Died Blue

SemperFideles said:


> Infra, because infralapsarians ROCK!



 

Also, while I'm not going to enter the debate again (and my thoughts are already clearly laid out in the threads Jeff noted above), since the supra view is currently getting the vocal majority here, I thought it would be noteworthy that all of the historic Reformed confessional documents (which certainly pass the test in terms of being _COOL_), when they speak on it at all, either implicitly or explicitly favor the infra position.


----------



## Civbert

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Anthony, does this mean I'm cool! Dude, I like that!



 Whenever you're agreeing with me - I know you're cool! :cool2: 

(Is there a tongue-in-cheek emoticon? I could use that one.)


----------



## PresReformed

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Supralapsarian
> 
> Some notable supralapsarians in the past:
> 
> Theodore Beza
> Franciscus Gomarus
> Peter Martyr
> Jerome Zanchius
> Zacharias Ursinus
> Jacobus Trigland
> Gijsbert Voetius
> Burmannus
> Herman Witsius
> Alexander Comrie
> Johannes Piscator
> William Whitaker
> Samuel Rutherford
> Thomas Goodwin
> William Twisse
> Jermoe Zanchius (possibly)
> Herman Hoeksema
> Gordon H. Clark
> William Perkins
> Gerhardus Vos
> Cornelius Van Til



Jeff, 
You forgot John Calvin. Fesko's book "Diversity within the Reformed Tradition" spells out Calvin's supralapsarianism pretty clearly.


----------



## johnny_redeemed

Infralapsarian because it is the safe answer while at the same time it still sounds smart.


----------



## johnny_redeemed

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Supralapsarian
> 
> Some notable supralapsarians in the past:
> 
> Theodore Beza
> Franciscus Gomarus
> Peter Martyr
> Jerome Zanchius
> Zacharias Ursinus
> Jacobus Trigland
> Gijsbert Voetius
> Burmannus
> Herman Witsius
> Alexander Comrie
> Johannes Piscator
> William Whitaker
> Samuel Rutherford
> Thomas Goodwin
> William Twisse
> Jermoe Zanchius (possibly)
> Herman Hoeksema
> Gordon H. Clark
> William Perkins
> Gerhardus Vos
> Cornelius Van Til
> 
> See this thread, this thread, and this thread for helpful discussions on this issue.



Where did you get this list?


----------



## PresReformed

also...

James Ussher
Thomas Bradwardine
Robert Rollock


----------



## Theogenes

I'm Supra. I think Reymond's argument for this position is excellent. We are studying predestination at our church and are currently using Reymond's chapter "God's Eternal Plan of Salvation" out of his systematic theo. book. If anyone is "on the fence" in this area, this chapter should bring you over to the supra side.:  
Jim


----------



## caddy

Turretin has a nice section on this in Vol II of his works.

"Infra"



Romans922 said:


> I thought it would be cool to do a poll on this, I don't think we have done that yet. Also, why?
> 
> Also, I was thinking today as I was reading Reymond for class, to help us understand this can we learn anything from God's election of angels?


----------



## Arch2k

PresReformed said:


> Jeff,
> You forgot John Calvin. Fesko's book "Diversity within the Reformed Tradition" spells out Calvin's supralapsarianism pretty clearly.


 
Thanks! I'll have to check this out. I also know that Ford Lewis Battles thought that Calvin was Supralapsarian as well, but I also understand that it is debatable as to if Battles' presuppositions might have come into play (or at least so I have heard).


----------



## Arch2k

johnny_redeemed said:


> Where did you get this list?


 
It is one I have compiled during my studies of the issue.


----------



## PresReformed

Jeff,
I believe that Fesko is infra, but he does an unbiased presentation of Calvin's supralapsarianism. Calvin agreed with Beza's position and Fesko cites Calvin recommending Beza on predestination. He was supra in it's original meaning. Many people call themselves supra nowadays that really aren't in the historical sense. Supra is not really about the order of the decrees, it has to do with how God viewed mankind in the decrees of election and reprobation. supralapsarians believe that God did not view man as fallen. infralapsarians believe that He did. So as much as I'd hate to admit it, Gordon Clark and a lot of others were actually infra in the original meaning of the word.


----------



## tewilder

When defined correctly the decrees imply each other. It is a logical mistake to think that one has priority of the others. The infra/supra debate is premised on a conceptual error.


----------



## brymaes

SemperFideles said:


> Infra, because infralapsarians ROCK!


Yeah!


----------



## Augusta

Does the knowledge of God have a beginning?? Does he make decisions??

I voted Supra.


----------



## Romans922

Who said we were talking about decisions? Is this Molinism or something? I thought we were talking decrees.


----------



## Arch2k

PresReformed said:


> Jeff,
> I believe that Fesko is infra, but he does an unbiased presentation of Calvin's supralapsarianism. Calvin agreed with Beza's position and Fesko cites Calvin recommending Beza on predestination. He was supra in it's original meaning. Many people call themselves supra nowadays that really aren't in the historical sense. Supra is not really about the order of the decrees, it has to do with how God viewed mankind in the decrees of election and reprobation. supralapsarians believe that God did not view man as fallen. infralapsarians believe that He did. So as much as I'd hate to admit it, Gordon Clark and a lot of others were actually infra in the original meaning of the word.


 
I was aware of some redefining of the terms infralapsarian and supralapsarian, but according to Berkhof, supralapsarian meant at one time that the fall was predestined. In this sense, infralapsarians would say it was not.



> E. Supra- and Infralapsarianism.
> The doctrine of predestination has not always been presented in exactly the same form. Especially since the days of the Reformation two different conceptions of it gradually emerged, which were designated during the Arminian controversy as Infra- and Supralapsarianism. Already existing differences were more sharply defined and more strongly accentuated as the results of the theological disputes of that day. According to Dr. Dijk the two views under consideration were in their original form simply a difference of opinion respecting the question, whether the fall of man was also included in the divine decree. Was the first sin of man, constituting his fall, predestinated, or was this merely the object of divine foreknowledge? In their original form Supralapsarianism held the former, and Infralapsarianism, the latter. In this sense of the word Calvin was clearly a Supralapsarian. The later development of the difference between the two began with Beza, the successor of Calvin at Geneva. In it the original point in dispute gradually retires into the background, and other differences are brought forward, some of which turn out to be mere differences of emphasis. Later Infralapsarians, such as Rivet, Walaeus, Mastricht, Turretin, a Mark, and de Moor, all admit that the fall of man was included in the decree; and of the later Supralapsarians, such as Beza, Gomarus, Peter Martyr, Zanchius, Ursinus, Perkins, Twisse, Trigland, Voetius, Burmannus, Witsius and Cornrie, at least some are quite willing to admit that in the decree of Reprobation God in some way took sin into consideration. We are concerned at present with Supra- and Infralapsarianism in their more developed form.


 
I can definately see this kind of supra in Calvin. I have read some quotes from him that would suggest that he would be supra in the latter development of the term as well, but I know it is hottly debated. It seems that everyone wants Calvin on their side.  

Bavinck has an interesting development of how the terms originated as well.


----------



## Augusta

Romans922 said:


> Who said we were talking about decisions? Is this Molinism or something? I thought we were talking decrees.



I mean decree, sorry I wasn't clear. I just mean his decretive will while hidden from us until he reveals it does not mean that it wasn't always there.


----------



## johnny_redeemed

Infrs. are making a come back in the pool!


----------



## RamistThomist

Not really. I just voted supra. Although Greco had a good defense of infra a while back.


----------



## Romans922

Augusta said:


> I mean decree, sorry I wasn't clear. I just mean his decretive will while hidden from us until he reveals it does not mean that it wasn't always there.




Well I don't think you can say always or not always because the issue is outside of time, another reason this issue is hard to talk about.


----------



## Arch2k

joshua said:


> What are the practical ramifications of holding one position over another?


The following critiques of Infralapsarianism by Robert Reymond answer your question In my humble opinion:



> 1. The infralapsarian scheme cannot account for the election and reprobation of
> angels. There are “elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21), but they were not elected out of a
> totality of their order viewed as fallen as the infralapsarian scheme affirms is true of
> elect men, inasmuch as the elect angels never fell.


 


> 2. Although the infralapsarian’s concern to represent God’s reprobation of some
> sinners as an act of justice (evidenced in his placing the discriminating decree after
> the decree concerning the Fall) issues a proper caution against any depiction of God
> which would suggest that he acts toward men with purposeless caprice, never-theless,
> if he intends by this to suggest that God’s reprobation of these sinners is solely an act
> of justice (condemnation alone) which in no sense entails also the logically prior
> sovereign determination to “pass them by” and to leave them in their sin (preterition),
> then he makes reprobation solely a conditional decree, a position in accord with the
> Arminian contention that God determines the destiny of no man, that he merely
> decreed to react in mercy or justice to the actions of men.


 



> 3. Espousing as the infralapsarian scheme does the view that the historical
> principle governs the order of the decrees, and arranging as it does the order of the
> decrees accordingly in the order that reflects the historical order of the corresponding
> occurrences of the events which they determined (as indeed the Amyraldian scheme
> does also), this scheme can show no purposive connection between the several parts
> of the plan per se. In a single, consistent, purposive plan one assumes that any and
> every single member of the plan should logically necessitate the next member so that
> there is a purposive cohesion to the whole. The historical arrangement simply cannot
> demonstrate, for example, why or how the decree to create necessitates the next
> decree concerning the Fall, or why the decree concerning the Fall necessitates the
> following particularizing decree.


 


> 4. Because the infralapsarian scheme can show no logical necessity between the
> first two decrees (the creation decree and the Fall decree) and the three following
> soteric decrees, it “cannot give a specific answer to the question why God decreed to
> create the world and to permit the fall.”


 


> 5. The infralapsarian scheme, by espousing a historical order of the decrees,
> reverses the manner in which the rational mind plans an action. The infralapsarian
> scheme moves from means (if, indeed, the earlier decrees can be regarded as means at
> all, disconnected as they are in purpose from the later decrees) to the end, whereas “in
> planning the rational mind passes from the end to the means in a retrograde
> movement, so that what is first in design is last in accomplishment” and, conversely,
> what is last in design is first in accomplishment.


 


> 6. The infralapsarian scheme does not come to terms with the teaching of certain
> key Scripture passages as well as the supralapsarian scheme does. In Romans 9:14–18
> and 9:19–24 Paul responds to two objections to his teaching on divine election which
> he frames in question form: (a) “What then shall we say? Is God unjust?”—the
> question of divine fairness, and (b) “One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God
> still blame us? For who resists his will?’ ”—the question of human freedom. Now if
> Paul had been thinking along infrapalsarian lines, he would have found it sufficient to
> answer both questions something like this: “Who are you, O sinner, to question God’s
> justice? Since we all fell into sin, God could justly reject us all. As it is, in mercy he
> has determined to save some of us while leaving the rest to their just condemnation.”
> But this he did not do. As we shall see, in response to both objections he simply
> appealed to God’s absolute, sovereign right to do with his creatures as he pleases in
> order to accomplish his own holy ends.


----------



## Arch2k

third commandment breaker said:


> Jeff, how can you be either if you're a flaming Arminian?


 
Arminians are known for their inconsistency, or at least so I've heard.


----------



## polemic_turtle

armourbearer said:


> Concerning the doctrine of God -- infralapsarians often speak of God's nature disposing Him to act in this or that way, some going so far as to say that God is bound. They will generally think they are required to justify the actions of God. supralapsarians are comfortable with the freedom of God, that God is what He wills Himself to be, and accept that He is just without requiring apology.
> 
> Concerning the doctrine of man -- infralapsarians tend to regard the fall as altogether evil, whereas the supra scheme can speak of its happy consequences.


Surely, though, there is no problem with saying that God is constrained, in a sense, by His own Holy nature.

I believe I heard Carl Trueman discuss this for a while when discussing John Owen. In reference to the necessity of the atonement contra the Socinians, Owen held that when God does something in time, we can trace that to something within Himself, which in this case was the absolute neccessity of satisfaction for justice by virtue of which it was neccessary to send Christ as the substitute. Actually, he said that Owen switched positions on this from before when he wrote the Death of Death and sort of tried to slip that under the radar.

But, anyhow, apparently folk like Samuel Rutherford who held to what I've heard called "hyper-supralapsarianism" didn't believe it was neccessary to God's sense of justice to have a substitution, but was able rather, by a mere act of His Will, to forgive sin without justice and wrath being inflicted upon a substitute. In the end, those things which are according to His nature are legitimate boundries within God, so if it may be demonstrated that that is all that is being done in an infralapsarian context, there is nothing to fear from it, right?

I'm interested in hearing what you think, Brother Winzer; would all of what I've said slip through the filter, so to speak? Are your statements about the infra position referring to the "they hated me without a cause" arguement?

By the way, I don't think I've seen anyone post the basic order of the decrees in this thread yet. It might be helpful, I think. Isn't the supra position something like this?

1. Create
2. Elect / Reprobate
3. Fall
4. Atonement
5. Regeneration in time

Isn't the supra position that the decrees are executed backwards in time? If so, then this list from Warfield's "Plan of Salvation" is wrong- you should have creation last in order.

A few famous infralapsarians I can remember:

Turretin
Owen
Edwards
Andrew Fuller
Spurgeon
Hodge
Warfield
Bavinck

I hope we're not just trying to create some sort of consensus here without actually discussing the question( it's interesting to note that the previous threads in which infralapsarianism dominated, discussion included much more than brief autobiographical notices of changes in opinions ). I'm not convinced of the importance of the issue, but I will link to a few mp3s discussing the issue, including the order of the decrees with regard to angels:

The Order of the Decrees - The Election of Angels - Dr. Curt Daniel

I don't want to sound as though I'm beating a drum, but I've two more things:

1. Dr. Daniel estimated by his reading that, based upon his definition of supra / infra, about 80% of Calvinists have been infra, while about 5% have been supra.

2. I've read that even Hoeksema admits in his Triple Knowledge that the Canons of Dort are infralapsarian, but didn't think that it was an essential issue. Wouldn't that indicate a trend somewhere?

Well, there's my two bits. 

P.S. Jacob, you can't give in to supralapsarianism! I once heard Joe Morecraft himself say that God elected from the fallen mass of humanity! *sneezes* Are those straws in my hands? Where di.. ;-)


----------



## Arch2k

polemic_turtle said:


> By the way, I don't think I've seen anyone post the basic order of the decrees in this thread yet. It might be helpful, I think. Isn't the supra position something like this?
> 
> 1. Create
> 2. Elect / Reprobate
> 3. Fall
> 4. Atonement
> 5. Regeneration in time
> 
> Isn't the supra position that the decrees are executed backwards in time? If so, then this list from Warfield's "Plan of Salvation" is wrong- you should have creation last in order.


 
Reymond's "modified" supra order 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’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.

See his systematic for a discussion of the two views of supralapsarianism.


----------



## PresReformed

I have always understood that the Westminster Standards are neither supra or infra, but are left open enough for either position to subscribe to the standards. Being that the Westminster Confession is so close to the Irish Articles (word for word in a lot of areas), and that James Ussher the author of the Irish articles was supra, it's interesting to compare the two documents on the decrees.

Irish Articles on Of God's eternal decree, and Predestination.
14. The cause moving God to predestinate unto life, is not the foreseeing of faith, or perseverance, or good works, or of any thing which is in the person predestinated, but only the good pleasure of God himself. For all things being ordained for the manifestation of his glory, and his glory being to appear both in the works of his Mercy and of his Justice; it seemed good to his heavenly wisdom to choose out a certain number towards whom he would extend his undeserved mercy, leaving the rest to be spectacles of his justice.
15. Such as are predestinated unto life be called according unto God's purpose (his Spirit working in due season) and through grace they obey the calling, they be justified freely, they be made sons of God by adoption, they be made like the image of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ, they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by Gods mercy they attain to everlasting felicity. But such as are not predestinated to salvation shall finally be condemned for their sins.

Westminster Confession of Faith
3:5 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 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.

3:7 The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. 

Both documents essentially say the same thing, yet Ussher was supra.


----------



## PresReformed

The Selected Works of John Murray Vol. 4, p.209

“ 'As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation' (Sect. VI). 
The section just quoted from the Confession requires comment from another angle. On the question of the order of the divine decrees the Canons of Dordt are infralapsarian. This would appear to be the purport of Article VII when it says that election is that whereby God hath 'chosen in Christ unto salvation a certain number of men from the whole human race, which had fallen by their own fault from their original integrity into sin and destruction, neither better nor more worthy than others but with them involved in common misery'. But it is clearly set forth in Article X when it is said that God was pleased ‘out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar treasure to himself'. The Confession might seem to have the same intent. 'Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ.' This would not be correct. The words, ‘being fallen in Adam', do not imply that the elect when elected were contemplated as fallen in Adam. The words simply state an historical fact which explains the necessity of redemption by Christ and the other phases of salvation. The Confession is non-committal on the debate between the Supralapsarians and Infralapsarians and intentionally so, as both the terms of the section and the debate in the Assembly clearly show. Surely this is proper reserve in a creedal document."


----------



## PresReformed

I'm not sure if I'm following you on this point Matthew. supralapsarians believe that that lump is unfallen man, not fallen man. supralapsarians believe that when God made the decree to elect and reprobate He viewed man as sinless. Are we on the same page?


----------



## Romans922

PresReformed said:


> I'm not sure if I'm following you on this point Matthew. supralapsarians believe that that lump is unfallen man, not fallen man. supralapsarians believe that *when *God made the decree to elect and reprobate He viewed man as sinless. Are we on the same page?



You have brought time into the argument...hehe. It is hard not to, but we can't.


----------



## polemic_turtle

Following the analogy, if the clay is split before the decree to sin is come, why taint both parts? Perhaps I'm reading too much into an anology, brothers. There might be a good reason I haven't thought of.

I probably was incorrect to call dear Mr. Rutherford's position "hyper"; I suppose I was trying to give the rest of you space if you didn't believe in his point of view on the neccessity of the atonement. Apparently, it's not that unique in him.

As for the "two gods" section, I'm interested in what you said. I'm rather young and often publically ignorant. But, perhaps the first statement wasn't correct; how about the second one, where I said that God's Holy nature is an appropriate "boundary within Himself"? I believe that sounds like what you were saying, that "God wills to act according to what He is." Not that He is somehow limited in power toward doing anything He wishes to, but rather limited in what He, being Who He Is, shall ever see fit to do. Surely "lying" and "denying Himself" are somehow "separate" from everything else possible in some sense. Perhaps "limit" is not a worthy word; I tried to transcend that by using "boundary", in a self-set sense. What is the appropriate word?

As for the atonement, what do you believe? Was it neccessary after it had been decreed that sinners would be redeemed? "Without the shedding of blood is no remission." I'm curious as to how Mr. Rutherford could have surmounted that, if he indeed thought that "without the shedding of blood, there may indeed be remission". I may be amazed and pleased with his adequate answer, like I hope to be with certain of Edwards' interpretations of eschatalogical texts.  Who doesn't wish post-mil is the correct view, before they've taken a contrary position?

I believe that posting such statistics as above from Dr. Daniel may have been inappropriate, since it is not agreed upon what these positions are and I'm not qualified to defend his historical statistics.

Oh, yes, I forgot to add: George Ella is an infralapsarian; add him to the list of famous infralapsarians.  *starts bailing water*


----------



## tewilder

armourbearer said:


> That sounds like two gods to me. One who is and another who wills to act according as He is. Whereas in reformed theology God's nature is His will.



Are you saying that Reformed theology is and always was volunterist? It strikes me as implausible.


----------



## PresReformed

polemic_turtle said:


> Oh, yes, I forgot to add: George Ella is an infralapsarian; add him to the list of famous infralapsarians.  *starts bailing water*



Maybe, but John Gill was Supra


----------



## caddy

From Phillip Schaff:

"The difference between the two schools is practically worthless, and only exposes the folly of man's daring to search the secrets of God's eternal counsel. They proceed on a pure metaphysical abstraction, for in the eternal God there is no succession of time, no before nor after. P 553 Vol VIII.

Later he states, "It is better for us to contemplate the guilt of man than to search after the hidden predestination of God."

"There is," he says, "a learned ignorance of things which is neither permitted nor lawful to know, and avidity of knowledge is a species of madness." P.555


----------



## PresReformed

“Now the authors of these several opinions have no reason to go together by the ears about these three opinions, but with brotherly love to entertain one another: First, because the difference herein is not so much in divinity, as in Logic and philosophy; difference in opinion about the order in intentions, being merely logical, and to be composed according to the right stating of the end intended, and of the means conducing to the end; it being generally confessed that the intention of the end is before the intention of means conducing thereunto. And that look what is first in intention, the same must be last in execution. Secondly, the authors of these several opinions about the object of predestination, do agree in two principal points. I. That all men, before God's eternal predestination and reprobation are considered as equal in themselves, whether as uncreated, or as created, but not corrupted, or lastly, whether created or corrupted. 2. That God's grace only makes the difference, choosing some to work them to faith, and repentance, and perseverance therein; while he rejecteth others, leaving them as he find them, and permitting them to finish their days in sin, whereby is upheld and maintained.”

William Twisse, The Riches of God s Love unto the Vessells of Mercy Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessells of Wrath or An Answer unto a book entitled Gods Love unto Mankind, manifested by Disproving His Absolute Decree for their Damnation (Oxford: L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, 1653), bk. 2, p. 10; edited spelling.


----------



## Arch2k

Thanks for that quote Greg. Truely, the underlined portion is the heart of the argument. The logical mind always has the purpose in mind, before he goes about planning its execution. Without accepting that, one will never be supra.

I long to read Twisse's work someday myself.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Thanks for that quote Greg. Truely, the underlined portion is the heart of the argument. The logical mind always has the purpose in mind, before he goes about planning its execution. Without accepting that, one will never be supra.
> 
> I long to read Twisse's work someday myself.



In the underlined, it seems that the author is making a separation that cannot be made. How does one seperate one's view of divinity from one's view of logic and philosophy? One's view of divinity will dictate one's view of logic and philosophy

CT


----------



## CDM

caddy said:


> From Phillip Schaff:
> 
> "The difference between the two schools is practically worthless, and only exposes the folly of man's daring to search the secrets of God's eternal counsel. They proceed on a pure metaphysical abstraction, for in the eternal God there is no succession of time, no before nor after. P 553 Vol VIII.
> 
> Later he states, "It is better for us to contemplate the guilt of man than to search after the hidden predestination of God."
> 
> "There is," he says, "a learned ignorance of things which is neither permitted nor lawful to know, and avidity of knowledge is a species of madness." P.555



 

I was looking for that quote just before I read it here.

I still end up getting into the debate though....


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Just to add another Twisse quote to the hopper:

William Cunningham, _The Reformers, and the Theology of the Reformation_, Vol. I, p. 363:



> There was never a more able or more zealous Supralapsarian that Dr William Twisse, the prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly. No one has written in support of Supralapsarian views at greater length, or with greater keenness, and yet he, to his honour, had made the following candid admission as to the great importance of the points in which the opposite parties agreed, and the small importance of the one point in which they differed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is true there is no cause of breach either of unity or amity between our divines upon this difference, as I showed in my digressions (De Praedestination Digress. 1), seeing neither of them derogates either from the prerogative of God's grace, or of His sovereignty over His creatures to give grace to whom He will, and to deny it to who He will; and, consequently, to make whom He will vessels of mercy, and whom He will vessels of wrath; but equally they stand for the divine prerogative in each. And as for _the ordering of God's decrees_ of creation, permission of the fall of Adam, giving grace of faith and repentance unto some and denying it to others, and finally, saving some and damning others, whereupon only arise the different opinions as touching the object of predestination and reprobation, it is merely _apex logicus_, a point of logic. And were it not a mere madness to make a breach of unity or charity in the church of God merely upon a point of logic?"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * _The Riches of God's Love unto the Vessels of Mercy_, etc., in answer to Hoard, p. 35
Click to expand...


----------



## reformedman

I think it's important to find out what the reformed man would say in answer to this question(poll).

I say supra.


----------



## larryjf

It was Robert Reymond that pulled me over to the supra side.


----------



## AV1611

I am a supralapsarian! This is because of Romans 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"


----------



## AV1611

*John Gill on Supra and Infra*

For those interested I though I would provide this by Gill. Appologies for the length. It is taken from his _A Body of Doctrinal Divinity Book _2, chapter 2:



> 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.
> 
> On the other hand, those who are called sublapsarians, and are for men being considered as created and fallen, in the decree of election, urge, (John 15:19) "I have chosen you out of the world". Now the world is full of wickedness, it lies in it, is under the power of the wicked one; the inhabitants of it live in sin, and all of them corrupt and abominable; and therefore they that are chosen out of them must be so too: but this text is not to be understood of eternal election, but of the effectual calling; by which men are called and separated from the world, among whom they have had their conversation before conversion, and according to the course of it have lived. They further observe, that the elect are called "vessels of mercy"; which supposes them to have been miserable, and so sinful, and to stand in need of mercy; and must be so considered in their election: but though through various means the elect are brought to happiness, which are owing to the mercy of God; such as the mission of Christ to save them, the forgiveness of their sins, their regeneration and salvation; and so fitly called "vessels of mercy"; yet it follows not that they were considered as in need of mercy in their choice to happiness. It is also said, that men are chosen in Christ as Mediator, Redeemer, and Saviour; which implies, that an offence is given and taken, and reconciliation is to be made, and redemption from sin, and the curse of the law broken, and complete salvation to be effected by Christ; all which supposes men to be sinful, as it does: but then men are chosen in Christ, not as the meritorious cause of election, but as the means, or medium, of bringing them to the happiness they are chosen to. It is, moreover, taken notice of, that the transitus in scripture, is not from election to creation, but to calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, and salvation. But, for instance, can calling be supposed without creation? It is thought that this way of considering men as fallen, in the decree of election, is more mild and gentle than the other, and best accounts for the justice of God; that since all are in the corrupt mass, it cannot be unjust in him to choose some out of it to undeserved happiness; and to leave others in it, who perish justly in it for their sins; or that since all are deserving of the wrath of God for sin, where is the injustice of appointing some not unto the wrath they deserve, but unto salvation by Christ, when others are foreordained to just condemnation and wrath for their sins? But on the other hand, what reason also can there be to charge God with injustice, that inasmuch as all are considered in the pure mass of creatureship, that some should be chosen in it, and others be passed by in it; and both for his own glory? These are some of the principal arguments used on both sides; the difference is not so great as may be thought at first sight; for both agree in the main and material things in the doctrine of election; as,
> 
> 2b3a. That it is personal and particular, is of persons by name, whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
> 
> 2b3b. That it is absolute and unconditional, not depending on the will of men, nor on anything to be done by the creature.
> 
> 2b3c. That it is wholly owing to the will and pleasure of God; and not to the faith, holiness, obedience, and good works of men; nor to a foresight of all or any of these.
> 
> 2b3d. That both elect, and non-elect, are considered alike, and are upon an equal footing in the decree of predestination; as those that are for the corrupt mass they suppose that they were both considered in it equally alike, so that there was nothing in the one that was not in the other, which was a reason why the one should be chosen and the other left; so those that are for the pure mass, suppose both to be considered in the same, and as not yet born, and having done neither good nor evil.
> 
> 2b3e. That it is an eternal act in God, and not temporal; or which commenced not in time, but from all eternity; for it is not the opinion of the sublapsarians, that God passed the decree of election after men were actually created and fallen; only that they were considered in the divine mind, from all eternity, in the decree of election, as if they were created and fallen; wherefore, though they differ in the consideration of the object of election, as thus and thus diversified, yet they agree in the thing, and agree to differ, as they should, and not charge one another with unsoundness and heterodoxy; for which there is no reason. Calvin was for the corrupt mass; Beza, who was co-pastor with him in the church at Geneva, and his successor, was for the pure mass; and yet they lived in great peace, love, and harmony. The Contra-remonstrants in Holland, when Arminianism first appeared among them, were not agreed in this point; some took one side of the question, and some the other; but they both united against the common adversary, the Arminians. Dr. Twiss, who was as great a supralapsarian as perhaps ever was, and carried things as high as any man ever did, and as closely studied the point, and as well understood it, and perhaps better than anyone did, and yet he confesses that it was only "apex logicus", a point in logic; and that the difference only lay in the ordering and ranging the decrees of God: and, for my own part, l think both may be taken in; that in the decree of the end, the ultimate end, the glory of God, for which he does all things, men might be considered in the divine mind as createable, not yet created and fallen; and that in the decree of the means, which, among other things, takes in the mediation of Christ, redemption by him, and the sanctification of the Spirit; they might be considered as created, fallen, and sinful, which these things imply; nor does this suppose separate acts and decrees in God, or any priority and posteriority in them; which in God are but one and together; but our finite minds are obliged to consider them one after another, not being able to take them in together and at once.


----------



## MrMerlin777

I'm a Supraman...!! 


(Disgusted groans all around for bad "punage"  )


----------



## docrob57

When I recently joined my PCA church, an elder asked me this question. He was joking, because he knew I had not been around long enough to understand the question. He was right. And I still haven't been around long enough to answer the question!


----------



## Peter

AV1611 said:


> I am a supralapsarian! This is because of Romans 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"



infralapsarians agree that election is prior to birth. The question is, what is the purpose of God's election? and I believe the answer is mercy.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Peter said:


> infralapsarians agree that election is prior to birth. The question is, what is the purpose of God's election? and I believe the answer is mercy.


----------



## docrob57

Peter said:


> infralapsarians agree that election is prior to birth. The question is, what is the purpose of God's election? and I believe the answer is mercy.



I would be an infra then


----------



## Civbert

Just a bump it get this up with the Calvinism poll. It looks like the supra/infra ratio will be close to the high/moderate calvinism ratio.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

From tominthebox news:


Friday, April 6, 2007
Infra and Supralapsarian Couple Learns to Live and Work Together 
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

The story of how Karl and Emily Crisler met and fell in love is a moving one. They were both in their first year at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson. She was fresh into her studies in Marriage and Family Therapy, he a Master of Divinity student struggling through Greek and Hebrew. They met in Theological Foundations, a three-hour-long Monday night class, and became fast friends.

"We started out just chatting some during the break time." Said Emily. "At first I thought he was just the typical MDiver, trying to impress me with how intelligent he thought he was. I just tried to be polite. But soon I really begin to notice him more and more. He was different, humble in many ways. We became good friends."

"I knew I wanted to marry her the moment I laid eyes on her!" Said Karl. "She didn't know it then, but I did. We were going to get married some day."

And, indeed they did. By the time they entered their second year at RTS they were husband and wife.

It would be great if the story ended with "and they lived happily ever after," but, unfortunately, that is not what happened. While the Crisler's faced many of the struggles common to newlyweds, one in particular caused significant problems in their marriage.

"It was a typical evening at home." Said Karl. "Emily had cooked a wonderful meal, and we were just having some dinner conversation. I began telling her about what we'd been studying in my Systematic Theology class on Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism."

Infra & Supralapsarianism are two views known commonly within reformed doctrine. Infralapsarianism argues that God's disposition towards the reprobate in his eternal decree is somewhat more "passive," that God determined that the fall would happen before he predestined some to salvation, thus "passing over" those who would not be saved. Supralapsarianism places God's decree to predestine some to salvation ahead of his decree of the fall. Thus reprobation occurs in a more "active" sense.

"As our conversation continued it suddenly became clear that Emily and I weren't on the same page." Said Karl. "When I was describing Supralapsarianism to her she said 'Well, that's what I believe.' and I asked her "How in the world can you believe that?"

"It was a big mess." Said Emily. "We argued for almost two hours about the whole thing."

In the days and weeks that followed tensions began to mount in the Crisler's marriage. Finally, they decided to get some counseling to help them through this trial.

"I really think things are beginning to get worked out now." Said Emily. "Even if we have this major theological difference between us, I know we can work it out and learn to live and work together."

"I still think she's wrong, but I love her." Said Karl. "And I know we've committed to stay together 'for better or for worse.' That's what I intended to do. I know we're not the only ones dealing with these things though. I have a friend out at Westminster Seminary, and he and his wife are going through some struggles over some major theological issues. His wife actually believes that flowers in the sanctuary are an acceptable thing, even in light of the regulative principle of worship. I don't know how it's going to work out for them, but we're committed."


----------



## Dagmire

I didn't read all of this thread, so I'm sorry if this was already posted, but...



> Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
> Eph 1:4 *just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world*, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
> Eph 1:5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
> Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.




How is there even any debate about this?


----------



## Romans922

That isn't the debate.


----------



## Dagmire

Then I don't understand the debate, nor do I see any profit in it.


----------



## Poimen

I voted for 'some other crazy thing' See Bavinck's "The Doctrine of God" pages 359-365.

Found here: http://www.the-highway.com/Bavinck_predestination.html


----------



## InChains620

*Yet another re-vote*

I voted infra but after some thought and conversations with others, I am leaning more towards Supra. I think it exposes God's sovereignty and omniscience more than its counterpart. So if I could vote again I would change my vote to Supra.


----------



## SRoper

I'm afraid this subject is beyond my understanding at the moment.


----------



## puritan lad

I have to vote supra. Correct me if I'm wrong, but infra- denies God's sovereignty over the fall of man, no?

Of course, there are issues with supra that I have to work out was well, such as how God could predestine Adam's sin without Adam having a sinful nature. Are there any good online articles concerning this?


----------



## Me Died Blue

puritan lad said:


> I have to vote supra. Correct me if I'm wrong, but infra- denies God's sovereignty over the fall of man, no?



It does not at all. Infra and Supra both equally assert that God sovereignly ordained the Fall. The difference is that infralapsarianism says that He ordained it first (first in a logical sense, rather than a temporal one), _then_ ordained some people to be damned in light of it (the sin), and some people to be saved from it. Supralapsarianism, on the other hand, says He initially ordained to damn some people and favor some people, apart from any ordination or concept of sin or redemption, and _then_ ordained sin through the Fall as the means by which to bring about that already-ordained damnation, also creating a need for redemption as the means by which to bring about the already-ordained favor.



puritan lad said:


> Of course, there are issues with supra that I have to work out was well, such as how God could predestine Adam's sin without Adam having a sinful nature. Are there any good online articles concerning this?



Well, many would agree with me that you _can't_ make sense of that. Furthermore, it is not even the classic supra scheme, but rather Robert Reymond's "revision" of it, which is really infra just as much (since the whole point of infra has always been that election and reprobation were logically decreed _in light of sin_). The key difference between historic infra and supra has always been that the former sees God ordaining sin/the Fall, then ordaining damnation and redemption as a result; and the latter sees God ordaining damnation and favor, then ordaining sin/the Fall as the means to bring it about.

Reymond's new scheme attempts to separate the ordination of men being sinful creatures with the ordination of the Fall, which no one (infra or supra) has ever tried to suggest before the twentieth century. In other words, it views God as ordaining the damnation and redemption of various "sinful" men, and _then_ ordaining that there be a Fall into sin. You asked how God could logically predestine something regarding _sinful_ men without yet ordaining that there will be a Fall into sin - well, your answer is as good as mine (or anyone's who holds to either the classic infra or supra scheme).


----------

