# Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism



## J.L. Allen (Sep 24, 2019)

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism 

Can someone briefly explain these terms as well as their history?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 24, 2019)

The following discussion may be of help to you:

John Owen on Amyraldian, supralapsarian, and infralapsarian conceptions of the divine decrees

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Sep 24, 2019)

Here is a really simplified breakdown:





- Taken from A Faith Word Defending. Edited by Jon D. Payne and Sebastian Heck.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 4


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Sep 24, 2019)

*"infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism* expressions that describe the logical order of the relationship between the decree to permit the fall of humankind into sin and the decree to elect some to eternal life. Infralapsus and sublapsus are synonyms meaning “below the fall,” whereas supralapsus means “above the fall.” In the infralapsarian/sublapsarian model, the decree to predestine some to eternal life is subsequent to or logically “below” (i.e., subordinate to) the decree to permit the fall. From this perspective, when God considers electing some to salvation he has already-fallen humankind in view. Those who are nonelect are simply passed over, that is, left in the sinful state in which they already find themselves. In the supralapsarian model the order is reversed: the decree of predestination comes logically prior to (i.e., “above”) the decree to permit the fall of humankind into sin. Thus, the decree to permit the fall serves to make predestination possible, rather than being (as in the infralapsarian/sublapsarian model) a response to a logically prior fall. Shedd, together with the Reformed tradition generally, adopts the infralapsarian/sublapsarian position. Note that a few systematicians (e.g., Chafer, Erickson) misapply the labels, wrongly assuming that infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism refer to three different positions. In fact, the Latin prepositions infra and sub, being purely interchangeable, are used to designate the same view, against the supralapsarian model. See also decree, permissive and decree, efficient and preterition and reprobation."

Shedd, W. G. T. (2003). Dogmatic theology. (A. W. Gomes, Ed.) (3rd ed., pp. 956–957). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 24, 2019)

Boettner:
https://www.monergism.com/infralapsarianism-and-supralapsarianism

Berkhof:
https://www.monergism.com/supra-and-infralapsarianism

P.S. I found Berkhof especially helpful.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 25, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Here is a really simplified breakdown:
> 
> View attachment 6293
> 
> - Taken from A Faith Word Defending. Edited by Jon D. Payne and Sebastian Heck.


Do just one view holds to double predestination then?


----------



## Logan (Sep 25, 2019)

I may get myself into trouble by sloppy terms (and it is far more nuanced), but put simply:

Infralapsarian:
God, in his mercy, foresaw the mass of fallen humanity he had created and determined to save some.

Supralapsarian:
God, to show his glory, determined to create some men for glory and some for damnation.

Both views acknowledge election, God's eternal decrees, his mercy, etc. So while God's decrees are from eternity, the question is which logically comes first: creation or election? If creation (infralapsarian) then this tends to focus on God's mercy in redeeming some of his fallen creatures. If election (supralapsarian), then this tends to focus on God's sovereignty in being able to do whatever he pleases to bring his elect to salvation and the reprobate to damnation (even creating them for the purpose of destruction).

There are many godly and respected theologians on both sides.

Bavinck has an excellent outline here:
https://www.the-highway.com/Bavinck_predestination2.html


----------



## RJ Spencer (Sep 25, 2019)

I have deleted my original comment, I see now that the term "permit" has a different meaning than the passive definition that I have grown accustom to using.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Sep 25, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Do just one view holds to double predestination then?



All predestination is "double predestination" when there are only two possible outcomes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 25, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Do just one view holds to double predestination then?


David,

You may find the below very helpful.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/

Ironically the lapsarian discussion comes up towards the end, so @Johnathan Lee Allen may also enjoy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer (Sep 25, 2019)

I found this blog to be helpful, it is obviously slightly biased. But this particular article was very good. https://supralapsarian.wordpress.co...-focus-of-the-lapsarian-discussion-should-be/
I am still very new to this subject, but I believe I have chosen a side based on logic and scripture. It is one of the only areas that I find myself in disagreement with RC Sproul.

Thank you for bringing up this subject! It is something that I hadn't really considered and after reading this post I decided to spend the entire day listening to the top minds from both sides.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Sep 25, 2019)

RJ Spencer said:


> I found this blog to be helpful, it is obviously slightly biased. But this particular article was very good. https://supralapsarian.wordpress.co...-focus-of-the-lapsarian-discussion-should-be/
> I am still very new to this subject, but I believe I have chosen a side based on logic and scripture. It is one of the only areas that I find myself in disagreement with RC Sproul.
> 
> Thank you for bringing up this subject! It is something that I hadn't really considered and after reading this post I decided to spend the entire day listening to the top minds from both sides.


An entire blog dedicated to this issue. Whoa!


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 26, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> All predestination is "double predestination" when there are only two possible outcomes.


One view is God actively determines final state, while other that God permits that outcome though, correct?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Sep 26, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> One view is God actively determines final state, while other that God permits that outcome though, correct?



How are you defining "permit?" Permitting something is not necessarily a passive activity.

From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

"1per•mit \pər-ˈmit\ verb
per•mit•ted; per•mit•ting [Middle English permitten, from Latin permittere to let through, permit, from per- through + mittere to let go, send] verb transitive 15th century
1: to consent to expressly or formally 〈permit access to records〉
2: to give leave: authorize
3: to make possible 〈the design permits easy access〉 verb intransitive: to give an opportunity: allow 〈if time permits〉—per•mit•tee \pər-ˌmi(t)-ˈtē, ˌpər-mi(t)-\ "

Permit is a verb which implies action. Both scenarios you laid out involves an active part on God's behalf.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Sep 26, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> One view is God actively determines final state, while other that God permits that outcome though, correct?



That doesn't matter even one bit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 26, 2019)

In nearly 20 years of reading Reformed theology from the sources, I have never been able to come to a conclusion on this subject. The main reasons for my indecision are 1) there seem to be good arguments on both sides, 2) I cannot prove either position from an exegesis of scripture, nor from good and necessary consequence deductions from such exegesis, 3) the Westminster Confession leaves it an open question. 

To be honest, if I have not come to a conclusion on the subject by now, I doubt that I ever will, though I remain open to persuasion.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 27, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Here is a really simplified breakdown:



Here's another simple chart with a link to a google image search of similar charts. (Click the image)



​


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 27, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> All predestination is "double predestination" when there are only two possible outcomes.



False.

The Confessions only refer to the predestination of the Elect. Reprobation or "passing by" is the proper term for the reprobate.

There is no equal ultimacy.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> In nearly 20 years of reading Reformed theology from the sources, I have never been able to come to a conclusion on this subject. The main reasons for my indecision are 1) there seem to be good arguments on both sides, 2) I cannot prove either position from an exegesis of scripture, nor from good and necessary consequence deductions from such exegesis, 3) the Westminster Confession leaves it an open question.
> 
> To be honest, if I have not come to a conclusion on the subject by now, I doubt that I ever will, though I remain open to persuasion.



Go with the Synod of Dort in 1618 then and choose infra.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Sep 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> False.
> 
> The Confessions only refer to the predestination of the Elect. Reprobation or "passing by" is the proper term for the reprobate.
> 
> There is no equal ultimacy.



Equal ultimacy and double predestination are not the same thing.

All reprobate (who are not elect) are predestined to reprobation. To deny this is logically meaningless.


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> False.
> 
> The Confessions only refer to the predestination of the Elect. Reprobation or "passing by" is the proper term for the reprobate.
> 
> There is no equal ultimacy.





SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Equal ultimacy and double predestination are not the same thing.
> 
> All reprobate (who are not elect) are predestined to reprobation. To deny this is logically meaningless.


Cough Cough... https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/ ....cough

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Sep 27, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Cough Cough... https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/ ....cough



That's the stuff right there!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 27, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Cough Cough... https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/ ....cough



The WCF 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 dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."


Show me one instance of the confessions speaking of the predestination to hell of any man. 

It is always framed in the form of "passing by" or "withholding mercy."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 27, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Cough Cough... https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/ ....cough


Get your cough checked out....you got a case of the Double Predestamonia...

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> The WCF 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 dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."
> 
> 
> Show me one instance of the confessions speaking of the predestination to hell of any man.
> ...


Perg,

Did you read the full Sproul, SR. article? He lays it out much more thoroughly than the majority of Ligoner articles. You and Sean are likely in agreement and are just using different terms. According to Sproul, SR., historically the reformed have been fine using the phrase Double Predestination.

In the the world of the Young, Restless, and Deformed ) the topic likely needs qualification. Sproul, SR. gives the needed qualifications.

P.S. In case you do not read it all, here is a quote:

"
_The Reformed View of Predestination_

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship."

and

"
_The Reformed Confessions_

By a brief reconnaissance of Reformed confessions and by a brief roll-call of the theologians of the Reformed faith, we can readily see that double predestination has been consistently maintained along the lines of a positive-negative schema.

The Reformed Confession: 1536

Our salvation is from God, but from ourselves there is nothing but sin and damnation. (Art. 9)

French Confession of Faith: 1559

We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of his mercy; leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them his justice. (Art. XII)

The Belgic Confession of Faith: 1561

We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, MERCIFUL AND JUST: MERCIFUL, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without respect to their works: JUST, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves. (Art. XVI)

The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566

Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man’s evil into good… . St. Augustine writes in his _Enchiridion:_ “What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly.” (Art. VIII)

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

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 … 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. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

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. (Chap. III-Art. VI and VII)

These examples selected from confessional formulas of the Reformation indicate the care with which the doctrine of double predestination has been treated. The asymmetrical expression of the “double” aspect has been clearly maintained. This is in keeping with the care exhibited consistently throughout the history of the Church. The same kind of careful delineation can be seen in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Turrettini, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Berkouwer, _et al"_


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 27, 2019)

Personally, I think that the discussion is trying to build an order that, despite the best efforts of the practitioners of the theories to make it only logical, inevitably makes it temporal in language. There can be no temporal order in a decree made in eternity. I believe that every part of the decree was fashioned with a complete mesh to every other part of the decree, which was always made. God saw all the inter-relations and fashioned every part of the decree with a view to how it would affect every other part of the decree. He also saw how the decree would work itself out and redound to His own glory. 

The fact of the matter is that the discussion often runs the danger of inquiring into something which has not been revealed to us. The secret decree of God is secret, and it is secret for a reason: we cannot understand it, and we would distort it if we knew any of it. I have always been uncomfortable with the entire discussion for these reasons.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 5


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 27, 2019)

@Pergamum ,

Also see user @MW here:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/double-predestination.66800/#post-856922


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 27, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Perg,
> 
> Did you read the full Sproul, SR. article? He lays it out much more thoroughly than the majority of Ligoner articles. You and Sean are likely in agreement and are just using different terms. According to Sproul, SR., historically the reformed have been fine using the phrase Double Predestination.
> 
> ...



Thorough summary. Thanks. I am ok with the terminology as long as we stress the "asymmetrical" aspect. That is my chief concern.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Sep 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Thorough summary. Thanks. I am ok with the terminology as long as we stress the "asymmetrical" aspect. That is my chief concern.



Absolutely. That's why I made it clear earlier to distinguish between _*equal ultimacy*_ and _*double predestination*_.

I am in agreement with you that equal ultimacy is not right.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Go with the Synod of Dort in 1618 then and choose infra.



The assumption that the Canons of Dort _requires_ infralapsarianism or _precludes_ supralapsarianism seems to lack historical perspective. It seems similar to the assumption that the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession excludes Hypothetical Universalism (of the non-Amyraldian variety). 

For one thing, the Canons were endorsed by supralapsarians such as Francis Gomarus. Also, it is unlikely that they intended to rule the views of men like William Perkins et al. out of bounds, as Dort was meant to be broad enough to unite those who were generally orthodox, despite some minor differences, in opposition to the Remonstrant Arminians. 

Even if other confessions require infralapsarianism, I prefer to stick with the Westminster Standards, which are the most careful and circumspect expression of Reformed orthodoxy.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The assumption that the Canons of Dort _requires_ infralapsarianism or _precludes_ supralapsarianism seems to lack historical perspective. It seems similar to the assumption that the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession excludes Hypothetical Universalism (of the non-Amyraldian variety).
> 
> For one thing, the Canons were endorsed by supralapsarians such as Francis Gomarus. Also, it is unlikely that they intended to rule the views of men like William Perkins et al. out of bounds, as Dort was meant to be broad enough to unite those who were generally orthodox, despite some minor differences, in opposition to the Remonstrant Arminians.
> 
> Even if other confessions require infralapsarianism, I prefer to stick with the Westminster Standards, which are the most careful and circumspect expression of Reformed orthodoxy.



Party Pooper!

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Party Pooper!



"Everything I do seems to hurt people." Charlie Sheen

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## J.L. Allen (Sep 28, 2019)

There's some really good material here. Thank you for the responses. I feel conflicted, but I also realize, as it has been pointed out, it is a matter that can be held loosely in order to have peace about it. A lot of it is speculative. I believe, at first glance, my inclination is to lean supralapsarian. However, I'm not committed to these things and ultimately understand God to be sovereign and to elect His people.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 28, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> There's some really good material here. Thank you for the responses. I feel conflicted, but I also realize, as it has been pointed out, it is a matter that can be held loosely in order to have peace about it. A lot of it is speculative. I believe, at first glance, my inclination is to lean supralapsarian. However, I'm not committed to these things and ultimately understand God to be sovereign and to elect His people.


The main Confessions support the other position, but both are viable per the scriptures.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Sep 28, 2019)

Dabney's conclusion:

_"*In my opinion, this is a question which never ought to have been raised.* Both schemes are illogical and contradictory to the true state of facts. But the Sublapsarian is far more Scriptural in its tendencies, and its general spirit far more honorable to God. The Supralapsarian, under a pretense of greater symmetry, is, in reality, the more illogical of the two, and misrepresents the divine character and the facts of Scripture in a repulsive manner. The view from which it starts, that the ultimate end must be first in design, and then the intermediate means, is of force only with reference to a finite mind. God's decree has no succession; and to Him no successive order of parts; because it is a contemporaneous unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intuition. In this thing, the statements of both parties are untrue to God's thought. The true statement of the matter is, that in this co-etaneous, unit plan, one part of the plan is devised by God with reference to a state of facts which He intended to result from another part of the plan; but all parts equally present, and all equally primary to His mind. As to the decree to create man, to permit his fall, to elect some to life; neither part preceded any other part with God. But His purpose to elect had reference to a state of facts which was to result from His purpose to create, and permit the fall. It does not seem to me that the Sublapsarian scheme makes the decree conditional. True, one result decreed is dependent on another result decreed; but this is totally another thing. No scheme can avoid this, not even the Supralapsarian, unless it does away with all agency except God's, and makes Him the direct author of sin." _- R. L. Dabney. Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology Taught In Union Theological Seminary, Virginia.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 28, 2019)

A review of reformed confessions regarding the OP from:
https://reformedbooksonline.com/infralapsarianism-supralapsarianism/#confessions



> *Reformed Confessions*
> 
> B.B. Warfield, ‘Predestination in the Reformed Confessions’ 1901
> 
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 28, 2019)

I would never want to say that God decreed to allow folks to be damned prior to his decree to create, lest we conclude He created some merely to be damned. Thus I put the decree to create and allow the Fall prior to the decree to elect some and pass by others. This is why I am infra.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Nate (Sep 28, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Go with the Synod of Dort in 1618 then and choose infra.




For those who subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity, the Conclusions of Utrecht are helpful on this topic:



> *The Conclusions of Synod Utrecht (1905)*
> A. Infra- or Supralapsarianism
> 
> In regard to the first point, infra- or supralapsarianism, Synod declares:
> ...




https://rscottclark.org/2012/09/the-conclusions-of-synod-utrecht-1905/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 28, 2019)

Nate said:


> For those who subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity, the Conclusions of Utrecht are helpful on this topic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"...should be discussed as little as possible from the pulpit..." Wow. That is surprising (but wise, I suppose).


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 29, 2019)

A’ Brakel - Reprobation Defined; A Christian’s Reasonable Service



> Reprobation Defined
> The other element of predestination is reprobation, to which reference is made in a variety of ways, such as “to be
> cast away.” “I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away” (Isa 41:9); to be fitted to destruction (Rom 9:22); to be appointed unto wrath (1 Thess 5:9); to be ordained unto condemnation (Jude 4); and not to be written in the book of life (Rev 13:8). These texts prove at once that there is such a thing as reprobation.
> We define reprobation to be the predestination of some specific individuals, identified by name, out of sovereign good pleasure to the manifestation of God‟s justice in them by punishing them for their sins.
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 29, 2019)

In theological writings, sometimes terms like double predestination are used or else election and reprobation are spoken of as two aspects of predestination. I do not believe that it is theologically wrong to do so. However, Perg is correct to draw attention to the fact that the confessions do not commit us to this language. The Westminster Confession speaks of election in terms of predestination and reprobation in terms of foreordination.

Westminster Confession, Chapter 3

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, *some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death*.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. ...

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 29, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> In theological writings, sometimes terms like double predestination are used or else election and reprobation are spoken of as two aspects of predestination. I do not believe that it is theologically wrong to do so. However, Perg is correct to draw attention to the fact that the confessions do not commit us to this language. The Westminster Confession speaks of election in terms of predestination and reprobation in terms of foreordination.
> 
> Westminster Confession, Chapter 3
> 
> ...


He had ordained their final state due to their rejection of Jesus, but not directly causing them to reject Him.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 29, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> He had ordained their final state due to their rejection of Jesus, but not directly causing them to reject Him.



The confession in the place you quoted says nothing about the sin of rejecting Jesus, but "to pass by, and *to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin."* Many have been condemned for their *sin* that never heard of Jesus.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 29, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> The confession in the place you quoted


Ed, Daniel - not David - quoted the Confession. Just wanted to clear up any confusion in your (quite accurate) response.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 29, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> He had ordained their final state due to their rejection of Jesus, but not directly causing them to reject Him.



I suspect that what you are trying to say is that God is not the author of sin. Everyone here grants that point, but, to echo what Ed said, many of the reprobates never heard of Jesus the Messiah, so your conclusion does not follow. The reason they are reprobated or passed by is because of God's sovereign will. The reason that they are damned is owing to their sin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 29, 2019)

kainos01 said:


> Ed, Daniel - not David - quoted the Confession. Just wanted to clear up any confusion in your (quite accurate) response.



How's this for confusing? I was referring to David's _requoting_ of Daniel's quote of the Confession which I did not include when I quoted David. 
Thus the Smiley-face here and in your post above. @Reformed Covenanter

EDIT: Now that I think about it I guess you are right in the main. So I am removing the smiley in your post.  And the beat goes on...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Nate (Sep 29, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I would never want to say that God decreed to allow folks to be damned prior to his decree to create, lest we conclude He created some merely to be damned. Thus I put the decree to create and allow the Fall prior to the decree to elect some and pass by others. This is why I am infra.



In reading William Young (from _Reformed Thought)_ on the topic, it seems he attempted to clarify that both the Supra folks and the Infra folks agree with your point. Young uses a few quotes from the famous Supra William Twisse to make this point. Young wrote


> All supralapsarians from Beza, and most emphatically Twisse, have maintained not merely that actual condemnation follows sin in time, but that it is _for_ sin that God has decreed to condemn them.



He quotes Twisse in _The Riches of God's Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath_


> not one of our divines that I know, doth maintain that God did ever purpose to inflict damnation, but for sin.


 and


> So that like as God doth not intend the creatures creation, before he intends his damnation, in the same respect he cannot be said to intend his damnation, before he intends his creation, or the permission of his sinne.



Young concluded that


> Since the 'infra' agrees that the distinction of the elect and reprobate was not due to their works but to the good pleasure of the sovereign will of God, and the 'supra' agrees that in the case of the reprobate the object of the decree was condemnation _for_ their sins, Twisse is justified in his conclusion that there is no substantial diferrence between them, but simply a point of logic or _apex logicus. _

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 29, 2019)

Greetings,

I thought this was worth mentioning.​*There is but One Decree of God.*​ 
Although I consider myself a Supralapsarian (I hope in the best Twisseian tradition), I always remember what Berkhoff and others have said about the singularity of God's decree. So I don't obsess about the logical order of His Decree(s)​*THE WORKS OF GOD*

THE DIVINE DECREES IN GENERAL​
A. The Nature of the Divine Decrees. The decree of God is His eternal plan or purpose, in which He has foreordained all things that come to pass. It is but natural that God, who controls all things, should have a definite plan according to which He works, not only in creation and providence, but also in the process of redemption. *This plan includes many particulars, and therefore we often speak of the divine decrees in the plural, though in reality there is but a single decree. For the material contents of His decree God drew on the boundless knowledge which He has of all kinds of possible things. Of this great store of possibilities He embodied in His decree only those things which actually come to pass.* Their inclusion in the decree does not necessarily mean that He Himself will actively bring them into existence, but means in some cases that, with the divine permission and according to the divine plan, they will certainly be brought to realization by His rational creatures. The decree covers all the works of God in creation and redemption, and also embraces the actions of His free moral beings, not excluding their sinful actions. But while the entrance of sin into the world and its various manifestations in the lives of angels and men were thus rendered certain, this does not mean that God decided to effectuate these Himself. God’s decree with reference to sin is a permissive decree.

Berkhof, L. (1933). Manual of Christian Doctrine (p. 84). Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 29, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I suspect that what you are trying to say is that God is not the author of sin. Everyone here grants that point, but, to echo what Ed said, many of the reprobates never heard of Jesus the Messiah, so your conclusion does not follow. The reason they are reprobated or passed by is because of God's sovereign will. The reason that they are damned is owing to their sin.


Didn't John state though that the light has now come to all, and yet those who reject Jesus do that due to loving darkness ?


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 29, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I suspect that what you are trying to say is that God is not the author of sin. Everyone here grants that point, but, to echo what Ed said, many of the reprobates never heard of Jesus the Messiah, so your conclusion does not follow. The reason they are reprobated or passed by is because of God's sovereign will. The reason that they are damned is owing to their sin.


Which would be their rejection of Jesus as Lord


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 29, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Didn't John state though that the light has now come to all, and yet those who reject Jesus do that due to loving darkness?



Yes, he did, but what has that point got to do with your earlier assertion?



Dachaser said:


> Which would be their rejection of Jesus as Lord



I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say in this post. Not everyone who will be damned for their sin got to hear the gospel, so they did not overtly reject Jesus as Lord. They will be judged for violating the law of nature, not for rejecting the gospel, which they never heard in order to reject.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 30, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Yes, he did, but what has that point got to do with your earlier assertion?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say in this post. Not everyone who will be damned for their sin got to hear the gospel, so they did not overtly reject Jesus as Lord. They will be judged for violating the law of nature, not for rejecting the gospel, which they never heard in order to reject.


My point was simply that per Paul in Romans, all sinners will be aware God exists, and that the truth of there being a Messiah has come into the world, and men judged for willfully rejecting that light.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 30, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> My point was simply that per Paul in Romans, all sinners will be aware God exists, and that the truth of there being a Messiah has come into the world, and men judged for willfully rejecting that light.



They are aware of the first point by the light of nature, but they can only be aware of the second point by the light of special revelation. Those who do not have access to the gospel do not know that the Messiah has come into the world. If they did, then all missionary endeavour would be useless as the pagans would have had the gospel preached to them through nature.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 30, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> They are aware of the first point by the light of nature, but they can only be aware of the second point by the light of special revelation. Those who do not have access to the gospel do not know that the Messiah has come into the world. If they did, then all missionary endeavour would be useless as the pagans would have had the gospel preached to them through nature.


good point, as all of us are already condemned in Adam as part of original Sin, and that works itself out in willful rejection of Jesus to save them from their sins when witnesses to about Him.


----------

