# CoG and CoR relationship



## Ethan (May 15, 2021)

I'm reading @JTB.SDG 's book, _Ruin and Redemption_, and have found his introductory presentation on the relationship between the covenant of grace and redemption to be very clear and insightful. I'm curious to hear where everyone here stands on the issue and what your reasoning is for your position. Below is a quote from page 24, footnote 36 of the book, expounding the differences between the views:
"The first view. . .takes the Covenant of Redemption as being made between the Father and the Son, and the Covenant of Grace as being made between God and elect sinners; whereas the second view takes the Covenant of Grace as being made not between God and elect sinners directly and without qualifications, but rather, with Christ as the head and representative of the Covenant of Grace, and in and through him, with all those whom He represented. This second view is expressed in the Westminster Larger Catechism #31: 'With whom was the covenant of grace made? The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.' Charles Hodge sets forth the statement of the question in this way: 'At first view there appears to be some confusion in the statement of the Scriptures as to the parties [of the Covenant of Grace]. Sometimes Christ is presented as one of the parties; at others He is represented not as a party, but as the mediator and surety of the covenant; while the parties are represented to be God and his people. As the old covenant was made between God and the Hebrews, and Moses acted as mediator, so the new covenant is commonly represented in the Bible as formed between God and his people, Christ acting as mediator. He is therefore. called the mediator of a better covenant founded on better promises. Some theologians propose to reconcile these modes of representation by saying that as the covenant of works was formed with Adam as the representative of his race, and therefore in him with all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation; so the covenant of grace was formed with Christ as the head and representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father. This simplifies the matter, and agrees with the parallel which the Apostle traces between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-21, and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 47-49.' This is the essence of the second view, represented in the Larger Catechism. Hodge, however, opts for the first view, which he describes in this way; 'There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ [IE, the Covenant of Redemption], the other between God and his people [IE, the Covenant of Grace].' Many reformed theologians (including Witsius, Vos, Bavinck, and Berkhof) adopt this same view, arguing for a distinct Covenant of Redemption (made between God and elect sinners). Both views are held by reformed theologians, but Thomas Boston argues convincingly for the position of the view expressed in the Larger Catechism, in his _View of the Covenant of Grace_. We mentioned that one of Hodge's hangups with this view was the fact that Scripture sets forth Christ as mediator of the Covenant of Grace, and, as he says, in the old covenant where Moses was the mediator, the covenant was made directly with the people. But if Hodge had read Boston, he might have had the answer to this question, for Boston speaks to this very thing when he says: 'Jesus Christ. . .fisted himself Mediator between an offended just God, and offending man guilty before him. . .And so the covenant of grace, which could not be made immediately with sinners, was made with Christ the last Adam, their head and representative, mediating between God and them; therefore called Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, to whom we come by believing (Hebrews 12:22-24). The term Mediator is not, to my observation, applied in the holy Scripture to any other, except Moses (Galatians 3:19). . .And of him, a typical mediator, it is worth observing, that he was not only an inter-messenger between God and Israel; but, in God's renewing his covenant, in a way of reconciliation, after breaking of the tables, the covenant was made with him, as their head and representative: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." (Exodus 34:27).' (pp13-14). In Other words, Boston draws out the Moses wasn't just the mediator of the old covenant, but at the same time also its head and representative. The most compelling argument for the view expressed in the Larger Catechism is the parallel that Scripture sets forth between Adam and Christ as the two covenant heads and representatives. Boston draws this out helpfully in his volume: 'Christ is. . .the second federal head, or the representative in the second covenant; as Adam was the first federal head, or the representative in the first covenant. . .Wherefore, as the first covenant was made with Adam, as the head and representative of his natural seed; so the second covenant was made with Christ, as the head and representative of his spiritual seed.' (pp15-16). And again: 'The covenant of works having been made with Adam as a representative of his natural seed, upon the breaking thereof, sin and death are communicated to them all from him as a deadly head. This being so, it was not agreeable to the method of divine procedure with men, to treat with those predestined unto salvation severally [IE, individually] as principal parties, each contracting for himself in the new covenant of life; but to treat for them all with one public person, who, through his fulfilling of the covenant, should be a quickening head to them, from whence life might be derived to them, in as compendious a way, as death was from the first Adam.' (p21). And, 'As in the covenant of works, God promised life to Adam's natural seed, upon condition of his perfect obedience, which is evident from death's coming on them by his disobedience; so in the covenant of grace, he has promised life to Christ's spiritual seed, upon condition of his obedience; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22). But that promise of life for Adam's natural seed was primarily made to Adam himself, while as yet none of them were in being; and they were to partake of it only through him, to whom it was made as their representative. Therefore the promise of life to Christ's spiritual seed, was made chiefly to him.' (p105). Thus, 'The covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are but two names of one and the same second covenant, under different considerations. By a covenant of redemption, is meant a bargain of buying and selling; and such a covenant it was to Christ only; forasmuch as as he alone engaged to pay the price of our redemption (1 Peter 1:18-19). By a covenant of grace, is meant a bargain whereby all is to be had freely; and such a covenant it is to us only, to whom the whole of it is of free grace.' (p22)."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (May 15, 2021)

I take a Tri-Covenant view and was influenced to this largely by Brakel and reading material linked on puritan board. I think about it as being distinct to that extent, but on the other hand I see all 3 covenants as being related. I see the CoR like an Umbrella over the CoW and the CoG.

See here for basically the same thread with a poll and cited materials:

Covenant of Redemption​

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## alexmacarie (May 15, 2021)

In my humble opinion, Boston is right in following the Larger Catechism. Turretin on this question actually makes a good point in defending the LC view and almost seems to demonstrate one way in which the two positions can be harmonised.

“The covenant of grace... was entered into with the elect in Christ after the fall.

...

And it seems superfluous to inquire here whether this covenant was made with Christ as one of the contracting parties and in him with all his seed (as the first covenant had been made with Adam and in Adam with his whole posterity—which pleases many because the promises are said to have been made to him [Gal. 3:16] and because, as the head and prince of his people, he holds the first place among all, so that nothing can be obtained except in him and from him); or whether the covenant was made in Christ with all the seed so that he does not so much hold the relation of a contracting party as of Mediator, who stands between those at variance for the purpose of reconciling them (as seems to others more appropriate). It is superfluous, I say, to dispute about this because it amounts to the same thing. It is certain that a twofold pact must be attended to here or the two parts and degrees of one and the same pact. The former is the agreement between the Father and the Son to carry out the work of redemption. The latter is that which God makes with the elect in Christ, to save them by and on account of Christ under the conditions of faith and repentance. The former was made with the surety and head for the salvation of the members; the latter was made with the members in the head and surety.”

Excerpt From
Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol 2)
Francis Turretin

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 15, 2021)

alexmacarie said:


> In my humble opinion, Boston is right in following the Larger Catechism. Turretin on this question actually makes a good point in defending the LC view and almost seems to demonstrate one way in which the two positions can be harmonised.
> 
> “The covenant of grace... was entered into with the elect in Christ after the fall.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't call joining the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace "the larger catechism view". The larger catechism is silent on the matter of the CoR as I understand it. It is my understanding that joining the two was not a popular belief among Presbyterians before Boston, and that an eternal covenant of grace, like eternal justification, bore some relation of English Antinomianism. The Sum of Saving Knowledge, which was often printed with the Westminster standards and is from period presbyterians, mentions a distinct covenant of redemption, as does the work of Rutherford, who was influential at the assembly. I think their silence in the standards on the Covenant of Redemption should be interpreted as silence and nothing more.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (May 15, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> I wouldn't call joining the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace "the larger catechism view". The larger catechism is silent on the matter of the CoR as I understand it. It is my understanding that joining the two was not a popular belief among Presbyterians before Boston, and that an eternal covenant of grace, like eternal justification, bore some relation of English Antinomianism. The Sum of Saving Knowledge, which was often printed with the Westminster standards and is from period presbyterians, mentions a distinct covenant of redemption, as does the work of Rutherford, who was influential at the assembly. I think their silence in the standards on the Covenant of Redemption should be interpreted as silence and nothing more.


Well said Charles. Has your own view undergone some changes since 2019?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2021)

I think someplace on the PB (long ago) I wrote that the Cov. of Grace is the context or vehicle in and by which we the people/beneficiaries are connected to the eternal covenant (CoR). Our view of and relation to the CoR is wholly mediated by Christ. There is an organic quality to the intersection between these two parts, in the Person of God the Son; so the two parts may be both distinguished yet composed. The condensed language of WLC31 conveys the unity of the design of the divine plan.

I am assisted and fascinated by the Boston quote, as he ties together Moses' typological mediatorial mission for reconciling Israel, to Christ's antitypical mediatorial mission for reconciling his church (from the whole human race) to God. Within the past few years, I preached to the end of Exodus, having previously got through ch.24. Central to the latter portion is Israel's failure in connection to the golden calf. I came to similar conclusions that Boston does, in that Israel is restored _through _the LORD's acceptance of Moses and his mediation. One may as well argue that _thereafter _in generation after generation of Israelite backsliding and manifest failure to live up to their covenant promises, the LORD for his part continued to regard his people as "accepted in Moses." I have Boston on my shelf. I just have so little spare time to do the reading that would have confirmed my exegetical impressions by so eminent a divine.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## timfost (May 15, 2021)

Distinct but closely related.


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 15, 2021)

Grant said:


> Well said Charles. Has your own view undergone some changes since 2019?


Did I participate in a discussion on this in 2019? I don't recall. But my views have shifted. In 2019 I would have accepted Boston's view, which I knew through John Brown of Haddington, but I no longer do. I'd characterize my shift and the reasons for it in the following ways:
1. I'm pretty indifferent toward whether the language of a covenant of redemption is the best way to talk about God's decree of salvation. The covenant of redemption is ultimately just the decree of the Triune God to save sinners, and I'm not opposed to the language of covenant being used, but I also don't strongly favor it. I see the Scripture talking often about God's decrees, his election, and his will, but I don't see the language of covenant being applied to God's decree in Scripture. If theologians want to use the language of covenant, I don't take an issue with that, but I don't see it as being on the same level as the covenant of grace where Scripture speaks very often of God's covenant with Israel, its terms, its laws, its benefits, which is the inheritance of the saints, etc. But if the language of covenant is merely plausible for God's decree, and covenant is the plain teaching of scripture for the covenant of grace, I think that cuts against identifying those things with each other.
2. The schema that identifies the covenant of grace with the covenant of redemption is inherently supralapsarian. The Covenant of Works is almost a useless appendage if the covenant of grace pre-existed it in a real sense. But I'm not convinced of the merits of supralapsarianism. If the fall doesn't precede redemption, what are we even redeemed from? I don't see much sense in that debate to begin with, but if I had to pick a side, I'm not sure it would be supralapsarianism, and I don't want to pick a covenant schema that requires it.
3. I now identify more strongly with the Zwingli-Oecolampdius-Bucer-Bullinger etc strain of covenant theology, which sees things required on the pages of Scripture as things required in God's covenant. Of course they're not the only authors that think this way. I don't believe in republication. I believe that the Mosaic covenant is the covenant of grace, and the ten commandments are the law of the covenant of grace enjoined on all believers as a "the law of faith and repentance", to quote Heidegger. That's not to say perfect obedience is a condition of continuing in the covenant, but faith and repentance, which entails at least a kind of sincere obedience, certainly is such a condition. Oecolampadius had a helpful quote on how Scripture speaks of conditions in the Covenant. He says, commenting on Jeremiah 22:5,
"Promises are made to the seed of Abraham, that is truly the seed, and perseveres in the remnants of Abraham. For it is not him who is a Jew outwardly, etc. Now the faith and hidden reason of the elect seed, since in some respect it lives, (and in whatever way it is effectual), it is necessary that it shine forth through works. It follows that it is fitting that Scripture speak as if the truth of the divine promise depends upon us. So therefore, the covenant does not propose and promise it, but under the condition, If you hear; if you do. From which place the mortification of the flesh, rebirth, and that life of the spirit, through Christ, who was first crucified in humility, and therefore raised up from the dead in glory, are distinguished in the pacts of God."
So I see Scripture as speaking very often of benefits being received on the condition of faith and repentance fulfilled in the believer, but in Boston's scheme, there are no conditions (or no "proper conditions") in the covenant of grace for believers. I just think the other view, which treats these things as the conditions of the covenant, period, does a better job of accounting for the language of Scripture.
4. I find the idea of the covenant of grace being eternal very different from the way Scripture speaks of it, and too close to the Antinomian idea of eternal justification for comfort. Scripture speaks of the Covenant of Grace like this: "Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember". Not, I will remember my covenant from all eternity. Now, I wouldn't stake the farm on that argument from silence, but Scripture is quite consistent in speaking of the covenant as something transacted in time. The same with justification. Yet the Antinomians want to speak of both as being eternal, and in Christ, because it diminishes the importance of anything man does in time, including obedience. Rutherford and Thomas Blake both include sections against the idea of the covenant of grace being between God and Christ in their works against Antinomianism. Scripture is very consistent in saying there is a covenant between God and Israel. The marriage supper of the lamb is about the marriage between Christ and the Church, not Christ and God. In Hosea God accuses Israel, not Christ, of covenant unfaithfulness, which means they were covenanted with him. On Sinai Jehovah makes a covenant "with you, and your children". The same in Acts 2. There are hundreds of these sorts of passages in Scripture, but the only one that seems to be saying something else is Romans 5. I think Romans 5 therefore must be made to agree with the rest, and not the rest with Romans 5. Romans 5 is talking about a mediator, not parties. The comparison with Adam is an imperfect one, because the covenant of works did not have a mediator, and Adam was really a party. The covenant of grace does have a mediator, and that's the role Christ fulfills, not the role of the inferior party. Christ considered as God is actually the superior party of the covenant of grace, as we see in the marriage analogy. He is the Jehovah to whom Israel is covenanted.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 15, 2021)

For anyone who's interested in the Antinomian polemics aspect of things, Puritan Thomas Blake attacks the doctrine that the covenant is between God and Christ here. The Rutherford reference I cannot find; perhaps I am mistaken.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## VilnaGaon (May 16, 2021)

Ethan said:


> I'm reading @JTB.SDG 's book, _Ruin and Redemption_, and have found his introductory presentation on the relationship between the covenant of grace and redemption to be very clear and insightful. I'm curious to hear where everyone here stands on the issue and what your reasoning is for your position. Below is a quote from page 24, footnote 36 of the book, expounding the differences between the views:
> "The first view. . .takes the Covenant of Redemption as being made between the Father and the Son, and the Covenant of Grace as being made between God and elect sinners; whereas the second view takes the Covenant of Grace as being made not between God and elect sinners directly and without qualifications, but rather, with Christ as the head and representative of the Covenant of Grace, and in and through him, with all those whom He represented. This second view is expressed in the Westminster Larger Catechism #31: 'With whom was the covenant of grace made? The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.' Charles Hodge sets forth the statement of the question in this way: 'At first view there appears to be some confusion in the statement of the Scriptures as to the parties [of the Covenant of Grace]. Sometimes Christ is presented as one of the parties; at others He is represented not as a party, but as the mediator and surety of the covenant; while the parties are represented to be God and his people. As the old covenant was made between God and the Hebrews, and Moses acted as mediator, so the new covenant is commonly represented in the Bible as formed between God and his people, Christ acting as mediator. He is therefore. called the mediator of a better covenant founded on better promises. Some theologians propose to reconcile these modes of representation by saying that as the covenant of works was formed with Adam as the representative of his race, and therefore in him with all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation; so the covenant of grace was formed with Christ as the head and representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father. This simplifies the matter, and agrees with the parallel which the Apostle traces between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-21, and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 47-49.' This is the essence of the second view, represented in the Larger Catechism. Hodge, however, opts for the first view, which he describes in this way; 'There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ [IE, the Covenant of Redemption], the other between God and his people [IE, the Covenant of Grace].' Many reformed theologians (including Witsius, Vos, Bavinck, and Berkhof) adopt this same view, arguing for a distinct Covenant of Redemption (made between God and elect sinners). Both views are held by reformed theologians, but Thomas Boston argues convincingly for the position of the view expressed in the Larger Catechism, in his _View of the Covenant of Grace_. We mentioned that one of Hodge's hangups with this view was the fact that Scripture sets forth Christ as mediator of the Covenant of Grace, and, as he says, in the old covenant where Moses was the mediator, the covenant was made directly with the people. But if Hodge had read Boston, he might have had the answer to this question, for Boston speaks to this very thing when he says: 'Jesus Christ. . .fisted himself Mediator between an offended just God, and offending man guilty before him. . .And so the covenant of grace, which could not be made immediately with sinners, was made with Christ the last Adam, their head and representative, mediating between God and them; therefore called Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, to whom we come by believing (Hebrews 12:22-24). The term Mediator is not, to my observation, applied in the holy Scripture to any other, except Moses (Galatians 3:19). . .And of him, a typical mediator, it is worth observing, that he was not only an inter-messenger between God and Israel; but, in God's renewing his covenant, in a way of reconciliation, after breaking of the tables, the covenant was made with him, as their head and representative: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." (Exodus 34:27).' (pp13-14). In Other words, Boston draws out the Moses wasn't just the mediator of the old covenant, but at the same time also its head and representative. The most compelling argument for the view expressed in the Larger Catechism is the parallel that Scripture sets forth between Adam and Christ as the two covenant heads and representatives. Boston draws this out helpfully in his volume: 'Christ is. . .the second federal head, or the representative in the second covenant; as Adam was the first federal head, or the representative in the first covenant. . .Wherefore, as the first covenant was made with Adam, as the head and representative of his natural seed; so the second covenant was made with Christ, as the head and representative of his spiritual seed.' (pp15-16). And again: 'The covenant of works having been made with Adam as a representative of his natural seed, upon the breaking thereof, sin and death are communicated to them all from him as a deadly head. This being so, it was not agreeable to the method of divine procedure with men, to treat with those predestined unto salvation severally [IE, individually] as principal parties, each contracting for himself in the new covenant of life; but to treat for them all with one public person, who, through his fulfilling of the covenant, should be a quickening head to them, from whence life might be derived to them, in as compendious a way, as death was from the first Adam.' (p21). And, 'As in the covenant of works, God promised life to Adam's natural seed, upon condition of his perfect obedience, which is evident from death's coming on them by his disobedience; so in the covenant of grace, he has promised life to Christ's spiritual seed, upon condition of his obedience; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22). But that promise of life for Adam's natural seed was primarily made to Adam himself, while as yet none of them were in being; and they were to partake of it only through him, to whom it was made as their representative. Therefore the promise of life to Christ's spiritual seed, was made chiefly to him.' (p105). Thus, 'The covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are but two names of one and the same second covenant, under different considerations. By a covenant of redemption, is meant a bargain of buying and selling; and such a covenant it was to Christ only; forasmuch as as he alone engaged to pay the price of our redemption (1 Peter 1:18-19). By a covenant of grace, is meant a bargain whereby all is to be had freely; and such a covenant it is to us only, to whom the whole of it is of free grace.' (p22)."


Wow, that is very well presented. I must buy that book. Covenant theology is the best antidote to poison of Dispensationalism which seems to have taken over the Churches.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ethan (May 16, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> The schema that identifies the covenant of grace with the covenant of redemption is inherently supralapsarian. The Covenant of Works is almost a useless appendage if the covenant of grace pre-existed it in a real sense. But I'm not convinced of the merits of supralapsarianism. If the fall doesn't precede redemption, what are we even redeemed from?


I’m trying to wrap my head around this. As far as I can tell both supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism place the decree of salvation after the decree of the fall, regardless of where the decree of predestination is placed.


----------



## greenbaggins (May 16, 2021)

I've never been a huge fan of entering the discussion on supra- and infralapsarianism. We are attempting to deal with something that happened in eternity past, to which we have no access. Discussions of the two positions claim right, left, and center that the discussion is a logical order, and not a temporal one. However, every single discussion I've ever seen of it winds up using temporal language to describe the order. The fact of the matter is this: every part of the decree is something God determined in relation to and taking account of every other part of the decree such that it is a seamless whole with no before and after in the determination, even if the decree itself concerns history, which most definitely does have a before and after. With the supralapsarians, I agree that every part of the decree has reference to the final goal of all things. With the infralapsarians, I agree that the decree had reference to how humanity would fall into sin. Where I think both positions fail is in seeking to ferret out a logical order, while almost never taking special steps to safeguard against temporal language.

Reactions: Like 11


----------



## Andrew35 (May 22, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> I've never been a huge fan of entering the discussion on supra- and infralapsarianism. We are attempting to deal with something that happened in eternity past, to which we have no access. Discussions of the two positions claim right, left, and center that the discussion is a logical order, and not a temporal one. However, every single discussion I've ever seen of it winds up using temporal language to describe the order. The fact of the matter is this: every part of the decree is something God determined in relation to and taking account of every other part of the decree such that it is a seamless whole with no before and after in the determination, even if the decree itself concerns history, which most definitely does have a before and after. With the supralapsarians, I agree that every part of the decree has reference to the final goal of all things. With the infralapsarians, I agree that the decree had reference to how humanity would fall into sin. Where I think both positions fail is in seeking to ferret out a logical order, while almost never taking special steps to safeguard against temporal language.


What gets me is people who use the terms "supralapsarian"/"infralapsarian" for performance. Anyone else ever noticed this? 

Someone wants to make a show of their knowledge, or ironically reference "theological-gobbledygook," and they reach for one or both of those terms. Every time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ethan (May 22, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> What gets me is people who use the terms "supralapsarian"/"infralapsarian" for performance. Anyone else ever noticed this?
> 
> Someone wants to make a show of their knowledge, or ironically reference "theological-gobbledygook," and they reach for one or both of those terms. Every time.


I’ve definitely noticed a sort of cage-stage phenomenon where the sovereignty of God has been recently discovered and identifying as suralapsarian is “edgy”.


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 23, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> What gets me is people who use the terms "supralapsarian"/"infralapsarian" for performance. Anyone else ever noticed this?
> 
> Someone wants to make a show of their knowledge, or ironically reference "theological-gobbledygook," and they reach for one or both of those terms. Every time.


That or they say "I just got done reading ____" in order to impress you with their literacy. We get it man, you know how to read.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 23, 2021)

I am rather a simple person on the matter. I see one Everlasting Covenant of Grace mentioned in Scripture. God is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent in all of his dealings with creation. Sometimes our classifications can get kind of muddied up as we try to bring everything into our systematic understanding. Like I said, I am kind of simple person. I do believe the scriptures speak of Christ as the one mediator between God and man. Moses was a mediator of the Administration given at Mt. Zion. But the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants have one foundation and promises that proceed based upon the Everlasting Covenant and Christ as the ultimate Mediator over them all. I tend to hold to the Bi-Covenantal view of Works and Grace. As I said, I am kind of a simplistic person.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JTB.SDG (May 23, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> That or they say "I just got done reading ____" in order to impress you with their literacy. We get it man, you know how to read.


Good thing we're not like them.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 23, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> I've never been a huge fan of entering the discussion on supra- and infralapsarianism.



R. L. Dabney got it right when he said that the lapsarian question ought never to have arisen. (Yes, I know that he went on to explain that he favoured infralapsarianism, but his initial observation was still correct.) Since we can prove neither position via scriptural exegesis, I see little profit in pursuing the question. From what I have observed, it appeals too much to the vain curiosity of men's minds.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (May 23, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> R. L. Dabney got it right when he said that the lapsarian question ought never to have arisen. (Yes, I know that he went on to explain that he favoured infralapsarianism, but his initial observation was still correct.)


I believe Bavinck had a similar approach.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 23, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> R. L. Dabney got it right when he said that the lapsarian question ought never to have arisen.


I have read that. LOL

Reactions: Funny 1


----------

