# Infralapsarian vs. supralapsarian



## xcrunner12 (Jun 24, 2006)

I was up pretty late last night and stumbled across a descrption of Infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism and I must say that the supralapsarian position makes alot of sense to me, but as i was reading about on a website (i can't find the link, srry) it said that supralapsarian position was that of hyper-calvinism. I was wondering if you guys could clear this up for me.

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by xcrunner12]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 24, 2006)

Someone has put it this way:
Virtually all hypercalvinists are supralapsarian.
But, not all supralapsarians are hypercalvinist.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 24, 2006)

See this thread and especially this thread for good discussions on this topic.

Calvinism has been divided on this issue throughout the centuries, most Calvinists on the infra side, but many notable theologians on the supra side as well. In my studies of the issue, I believe that the "modified" position supralapsarianism is the biblical position. Robert Reymond in his systematic theology does a good job of explaining the position well, but it will take some long study of the topic and meditation upon the different arguments to determine what scripture has to say on the topic.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 24, 2006)

This is one of those areas in which discussion tends to generate lots of heat and little light. 

I, personally, am infralapsarian... but I can certainly sympathize with the concerns and arguments of supralapsarians.


----------



## ~~Susita~~ (Jun 24, 2006)

My pastor mentioned this last summer... It'll be interesting to see how it develops...


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I agree that we must not _assume_ that the Bible says anthing regarding the subject, but I for one, believe that it does.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



But what the Bible certainly does not say is Reymond's gobbledygook. It might say infra. It might say supra. It might even say, "don't worry about it." But it can't say a logical inconsistency about the logical order of God's decrees.


----------



## xcrunner12 (Jun 25, 2006)

I came across this while reading about and getting headache over this topic: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm
Robert Reymond's Revised Supralapsarianism is quite nice.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 25, 2006)

Notice from the article:



> But Reymond's view also leaves unanswered the question of how and why God would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the human race would fall. (Some might even argue that Reymond's refinements result in a position that, as far as the key distinction is concerned, is implicitly infralapsarian.)


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> See this thread and especially this thread for good discussions on this topic.
> 
> Calvinism has been divided on this issue throughout the centuries, most Calvinists on the infra side, but many notable theologians on the supra side as well. In my studies of the issue, I believe that the "modified" position supralapsarianism is the biblical position. Robert Reymond in his systematic theology does a good job of explaining the position well, but it will take some long study of the topic and meditation upon the different arguments to determine what scripture has to say on the topic.



We must not assume that scripture says anything on the topic. A study on God and the His relationship to his "Revealed" attributes is where the answer lies. I personally believe that God has not revealed the answer (not assuming some unknown third option is impossible)

CT


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jun 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by xcrunner12_
> I came across this while reading about and getting headache over this topic: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm
> Robert Reymond's Revised Supralapsarianism is quite nice.



Eric,

This topic still gives me a headache, and I've been a serious student of the reformed faith for like 25 years. I really hope that you will read and study the Westminster standards (I suggest the edition published by FPP) - that itself will keep you plenty busy, and I hope, productive. in my opinion the current topic is among the "finer points". This type of thing reminds me of how people head straight for the Apocolypse before getting a good grasp on the OT and the rest of the NT.

Have a blessed Sabbath day,
_J. Sulzmann_

PS: Leveque - obviously French origin. The Lord graciously spared you from finding yourself within the confines of Rome, as he did me. I have no French blood, but my mother was of Irish ancestry and reared in the Roman communion; fortunately she married a man who refused to have a priest dictate how his children would be reared. My mother converted to Protestantism some 8 years after they married. 

Are you a Huguenot descendent? If you don't know, you might want to research that. Mr. Myers (VirginiaHuguenot handle) might prove a good resource - I'm sure that he would encourage you.


----------



## xcrunner12 (Jun 25, 2006)

To the best of my knowledge I am not of Huguenot descent, but I think it would be really cool if I was. My ancestors came over in the late 1800's and the 1st generation of Leveques here were Methodist, but not much is known about the first of my ancestors' religious beliefs, unfortunatly.


----------



## MW (Jun 25, 2006)

I agree with Fred about the criticisms of Reymond's supra scheme. It defeats the purpose of maintaining an order in the decrees at all. Remembering, of course, that the order is only a logical not a chronological one.

I uphold Christological supralapsarianism (that may be a new expression). "That in all things He might have the pre-eminence." Christ was elected Head of creation first. Hence Adam was a figure of Him who was to come. Then the creation was subordinated to Him: first the elect, then the reprobate. The creation was subject to vanity. Christ was ordained to reconcile all things to Himself.

It is inconceivable that the decree did not have the exaltation of Christ as its principal object.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by xcrunner12_
> To the best of my knowledge I am not of Huguenot descent, but I think it would be really cool if I was. My ancestors came over in the late 1800's and the 1st generation of Leveques here were Methodist, but not much is known about the first of my ancestors' religious beliefs, unfortunatly.



Leveque is a distinguished name from Normandy (one of my bosses has the name Levesque, pronounced the same), but it is not listed in the National Huguenot Society database of Huguenot surnames. That is not a definitive answer to the question, however, further personalized research would be necessary to definitively say one way or the other.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Notice from the article:
> 
> 
> ...



I disagree with this criticism. Supralapsarianism has always held to the idea that what is the ultimate end, is the first in design (or planning). In this case, the end is "œredeeming fallen men by Christ´s atoning work". This presupposes not only sinful men, but all sorts of other things not *actually* decreed yet, such as the incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord. After this end in mind, God teleologically works out the means by which to accomplish this end.



> The first suppose that in a rational mind, that which is ultimate as end, is first in design; and that, in the process of planning, the mind passes from the end to the means, traveling as it were backwards.
> From www.mbrem.com/calvinism/dab-sup.htm+supralapsarianism+what+is+%22first+in%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2]Dabney on Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian[/url]


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2006)

Supra: election and reprobation consider man in an unfallen state.

Infra: election and reprobation consider man in a fallen state.

How is it possible that the end in supralapsarianism is "œredeeming fallen men by Christ´s atoning work?" That appears to me to be the fundamental tenet of infralapsarianism.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jun 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> I agree with Fred about the criticisms of Reymond's supra scheme. It defeats the purpose of maintaining an order in the decrees at all. Remembering, of course, that the order is only a logical not a chronological one.
> 
> I uphold Christological supralapsarianism (that may be a new expression). "That in all things He might have the pre-eminence." Christ was elected Head of creation first. Hence Adam was a figure of Him who was to come. Then the creation was subordinated to Him: first the elect, then the reprobate. The creation was subject to vanity. Christ was ordained to reconcile all things to Himself.
> ...



Thank you, Rev. Winzer, for this piece of wisdom and insight. I especially appreciate that 3rd (last) paragraph.

Cheers -- _Jay_


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Jun 26, 2006)

this may help:

http://www.the-highway.com/Bavinck_predestination2.html


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Supra: election and reprobation consider man in an unfallen state.
> 
> Infra: election and reprobation consider man in a fallen state.
> ...



Exactly. Which is why I have said in previous threads that that Reymond is all wet. It is like saying that men breath water instead of air, provided that water is considered a gas made up of nitrogen and oxygen.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Supra: election and reprobation consider man in an unfallen state.
> 
> Infra: election and reprobation consider man in a fallen state.
> ...



Technically, this is not the case. Supralapsarianism is defined by the decree to elect preceding the decree of the fall. This does not necessitate that God cannot have men as fallen in mind (i.e. as his end) before actually decreeing it to be so logically (i.e. the means). Infralapsarianism is defined as the decree of the fall precedes election. The modified view has God viewing the ultimate goal of fallen men redeemed by Christ while the actual means of carrying out that goal (the individual decrees) have election preceding the decree of the fall. Hence it technically is still supralapsarianism.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2006)

It is a no-no to regard the order as chronological rather than logical. It can only lead to confusion. The difference between supra and infra solely pertains to the question of the logical relation of the decree with respect to predestination and the fall. "Supra" = above; "infra"= below;" "lapsus" = the fall.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



Jeff,

Technically, that is _exactly_ the case, as Rev. Winzer has pointed out. As has been pointed out numerous times, supralapsarianism has advantages and disadvantages. It also has Biblical support to draw on. So likewise does infralapsarianism. The "modified" view is incoherent nonsense.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 26, 2006)

Infralapsarianism rules.


----------



## Peter (Jun 26, 2006)

no one should have difficulty confusing the logical order of the decrees with the chronological order. Chronologically, all of the decrees happened at the same time, or rather all of the decrees happened _before_ time. To me, the most reasonable order is that predestination happens because mankind is fallen into unrighteousness and of course all things are subordinated to God's glory which is prior to everything in the order.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> To me, the most reasonable order is that predestination happens because mankind is fallen into unrighteousness and of course all things are subordinated to God's glory which is prior to everything in the order.



It is an inherent weakness in the infralapsarian scheme that the only place it has for Christ is as an after-thought.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



I remember us touching on this point a bit in an earlier thread on the subject. There seem to be four terms that stand at the heart of the disagreement and/or confusion on God's decrees and their relationship to man's fall and man's fallen state: Contemplation, intent, decree, and act.

We _all_ agree that God did all of the former three with regard to the fall before He did the fourth (bringing the fall to pass). I think what caused our confusion previously was my failure to precisely differentiate between the first three terms, and you had mentioned WCF.III.II to clarify that God always has _contemplated_ anything and everything. As such, *I fully agree with you that He can have contemplation of man being fallen without yet (using "yet" in a logical rather than chronological way, of course) having either intent or decree of man being fallen.

I think the main point of disagreement, then, is that you seem to be further saying that God can have intent of man being fallen without yet having decree of man being fallen; and that is what I (along with Fred and Matthew, I'm guessing) see as being a logical impossibility. Now with regard to human thought, that would in fact be logically possible, for of course we can intend to do something in the future without yet deciding (decreeing) to definitely do it in the future (see my example of this at the end of the post). With regard to God's thought, however, I would strongly say that He cannot intend something without decreeing it, since, unlike man, any and all intents and purposes He has inevitably come to pass. That is why for God, an intent necessarily and automatically means a decree;* and that is why an intention in God's mind to one day redeem a fallen people cannot precede (in an order of logic) a decree for a people to fall.

######

(Example of humans being able to _intend_ a future act without yet even officially _deciding_ in their minds to one day do it: I intend to enroll in XYZ College two years from now since what I have heard about it overall is much better than what i have heard about the other colleges on my list. But that intent in my mind will only change to an official decision in my mind once I talk with a English chairman. Upon doing so, I find myself unsatisfied with the English department, which outweighs whatever other positive factors the college has. So while the _act_ of enrolling in the college is still two years away, the _intent_ occured right then two years in advance, but the _decision_ never occured right then, even though it might have occured right then had factors been different.)


----------



## Peter (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Christ _as Mediator_ is an after-thought. It doesn't make sense to conceive Christ exalted in his office of Mediator without first the fall and sin. Christ as God has priority though.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 27, 2006)

I found at least two words that should never be proclaimed from a pulpit:
<ul><li>Infralapsarian</li>
<li>Supralapsarian</li></ul>


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> It is a no-no to regard the order as chronological rather than logical. It can only lead to confusion. The difference between supra and infra solely pertains to the question of the logical relation of the decree with respect to predestination and the fall. "Supra" = above; "infra"= below;" "lapsus" = the fall.



Matthew,

Forgive me, but I don't see where I or Reymond have done this. In fact, that is exactly what his treatment seeks to expose and prevent. Simply using such words as "precede" and such (if this is what caused this warning) can be used in a logical order as well as a chronological order.

Blessings,


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 27, 2006)

Can we know God as He is beyond his condescension to relate to us?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 27, 2006)

Infralapsarianism rules.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Can we know God as He is beyond his condescension to relate to us?



I think we all agree to this. Most Calvinists however, believe that there are principles in scripture that allow us to deduce the order of the decrees. God is a logical thinker, and therefore the order of the decrees must be a logical one.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



Is that a yes or a no?

And I would not say that God is a logical thinking, I would say that he is NOT an illogical thinker. (I'm not even sure if the term think can necessarily be applied to God in his essense, but that can be a discussion for another day)

This does not cash out the same as what you are saying without a lot of assertions.

CT

[Edited on 6-27-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

Peter,

Col. 1:15, 16, Christ is the Head of creation. The infra scheme does not allow for this fact. If it did allow for this fact, the infra scheme would effectively be saying God has given all men to Christ and then plucked the reprobate out of His hands.


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

Hermonta,

By "logical" is not meant what God has in His mind, since He knows all things intuitively and at once; but it refers to the human conception of means and ends. The decree determines Christ must die. It also determines it will be done by wicked hands. One is a means to an end in our conception of it. From this example it can be seen that the order of the decrees, i.e., the objects which are decreed, is not a speculative point, but one which enters into the very fabric of written revelation.

The ultimate ends are the secret things of the Lord, to which we should never seek to pry into.


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

Jeff,

With regard to God having things before His mind, please see the post above to Hermonta. It is an improper manner of speaking. There isn't any succession in God's thoughts. Hence it is null to speak of God having the fall in consideration when electing. It is only transferring the chronology to God's mind, which is not seemly.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Hermonta,
> 
> By "logical" is not meant what God has in His mind, since He knows all things intuitively and at once; but it refers to the human conception of means and ends.



The whole discussion is about what God thought about first, second etc. If that is off limits, what is there to debate?



> The decree determines Christ must die. It also determines it will be done by wicked hands. One is a means to an end in our conception of it. From this example it can be seen that the order of the decrees, i.e., the objects which are decreed, is not a speculative point, but one which enters into the very fabric of written revelation.



We know what was decreed because God has revealed such. If that was the only question then the infra vs. supra would not be a discussion because they both agree as to what is decreed.



> The ultimate ends are the secret things of the Lord, to which we should never seek to pry into.



Which is what I am saying about the infra vs. supra thing altogether, that it is an example of prying.

CT

[Edited on 6-27-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## CDM (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Jeff,
> 
> With regard to God having things before His mind, please see the post above to Hermonta. It is an improper manner of speaking. There isn't any succession in God's thoughts. Hence it is null to speak of God having the fall in consideration when electing. It is only transferring the chronology to God's mind, which is not seemly.


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Alright and are the human conceptions applicable to God?



No, that is impossible. However, God has condescended to be known in human thoughts and forms. Hence it is legitimate.



> We know what was decreed because God has revealed such. If that was the only question then the infra vs. supra would not be a discussion because they both agree as to what is decreed.



Remember, it is a question of means and end. Ultimately this is what the Calvinist is arguing against the Arminian. Election does not depend upon faith. We argue faith was ordained as a means whereby the elect would be saved. Thus the written revelation of God presents it. Likewise supralapsarian argues that Scripture presents the fall as a means to ultimately manifest the sons of God, Rom. 8.



> Which is what I am saying about the infra vs. supra thing altogether, that it is an example of prying.



I tend to think that it is rather an earnest endeavour to systematise the biblical data.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



He has condescended but that does not imply that he has given us a playbook on how his uncondescended self works. Remember the scriptures tell us that such occured before time. Outside of time is outside of God's condescention.



> > We know what was decreed because God has revealed such. If that was the only question then the infra vs. supra would not be a discussion because they both agree as to what is decreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, it is a question of means and end.



Alright and we agree about the means and end. The only issue is the ordering, which I do not see how that can be anything but prying.



> Ultimately this is what the Calvinist is arguing against the Arminian. Election does not depend upon faith.



The Bible clearly reveals that it does not depend on anything that occurs in time.



> We argue faith was ordained as a means whereby the elect would be saved. Thus the written revelation of God presents it.



Completely correct.



> Likewise supralapsarian argues that Scripture presents the fall as a means to ultimately manifest the sons of God, Rom. 8.



That sounds good but the infra vs. supra wants to go beyond this and then pry into what order God had to be thinking in order to formulate the plan that lead to a certain end. 



> > Which is what I am saying about the infra vs. supra thing altogether, that it is an example of prying.
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to think that it is rather an earnest endeavour to systematise the biblical data.



I think the Biblical data can be systematized quite nicely without coming close to answering the ordering of God's thinking.

CT


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> He has condescended but that does not imply that he has given us a playbook on how his uncondescended self works. Remember the scriptures tell us that such occured before time. Outside of time is outside of God's condescention.



The decree is concerned with actions which take place in time. We are only talking about the decree ad extra, that is, about the objects that the decree concerns itself with. These come to pass in time in an orderly manner. It is very important to grasp this concept as fundamental: the discussion of the order of the decrees states nothing concerning the internal workings of the divine mind in making the decree. That being the case, we are not prying into God's mind when we ask what logical relationship does one thing decreed bear to another thing decreed.



> I think the Biblical data can be systematized quite nicely without coming close to answering the ordering of God's thinking.



As do I.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



I agree that the decree is concerned with actions which take place in time, but is that what infra vs. supra is concerned with: What happens in time?



> We are only talking about the decree ad extra, that is, about the objects that the decree concerns itself with. These come to pass in time in an orderly manner. It is very important to grasp this concept as fundamental: the discussion of the order of the decrees states nothing concerning the internal workings of the divine mind in making the decree.



Really? If this is the case, then how can reformed people disagree. The timeline is obvious. However reformed people have disagreed about infra and supra for a while now. So that discussion must include more than just the discussion of the timeline.



> That being the case, we are not prying into God's mind when we ask what logical relationship does one thing decreed bear to another thing decreed.



Alright, sounds cogent.



> > I think the Biblical data can be systematized quite nicely without coming close to answering the ordering of God's thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> As do I.



I agree with what you have said, but I have never seen the argument between infra and supra characterized in this fashion.

CT


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

Written from an infra perspective, Dabney's Systematics provides some good boundaries for discussing this question.


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

Oops. I sent the last post prematurely. This follows on:



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> I agree that the decree is concerned with actions which take place in time, but is that what infra vs. supra is concerned with: What happens in time?



Yes. All things are decreed. All things bear a logical order to one another. It is the decree which gives them that order. Hence it is right to enquire what the logical order is concerning things decreed.



> We are only talking about the decree ad extra, that is, about the objects that the decree concerns itself with. These come to pass in time in an orderly manner. It is very important to grasp this concept as fundamental: the discussion of the order of the decrees states nothing concerning the internal workings of the divine mind in making the decree.
> 
> 
> 
> > Really? If this is the case, then how can reformed people disagree. The timeline is obvious. However reformed people have disagreed about infra and supra for a while now. So that discussion must include more than just the discussion of the timeline.



Timeline? That sounds like chronology again. We should only be interested in logical order. Man was created last, but there is no doubt that he is first in order.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Oops. I sent the last post prematurely. This follows on:
> 
> 
> ...



I think we are back to prying again. Man has logical orders, but does God? It is a human concept being applied onto God. God revealed his decree in time, why exactly do we need more than that?



> > We are only talking about the decree ad extra, that is, about the objects that the decree concerns itself with. These come to pass in time in an orderly manner. It is very important to grasp this concept as fundamental: the discussion of the order of the decrees states nothing concerning the internal workings of the divine mind in making the decree.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



You really cannot separate logic from time, unless you want to introduce God type logic as opposed to man type logic (which still would not be helpful). If you do separate logic from time then one's conception of logic implodes.

And on top of this, it is unnecessary because the Bible clearly reveals that man was God's top creation.

CT


----------



## Civbert (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> You really cannot separate logic from time, unless you want to introduce God type logic as opposed to man type logic (which still would not be helpful). If you do separate logic from time then one's conception of logic implodes.



Actually, you can not conflate logic and time. Logical order is non-temporal - it has nothing to do with time. The question is not what did God think first, then second, but what is the _logical_ order of his decrees vs the order they were carried out. 

Again, logic is not a function of time. A true proposition is true for all times, places, and people. A and ~A is always false, A or ~A is always true, A is A is always true. These three laws of logic are about the state of propositional truth, the elements of knowledge which are not functions of time, place, or person.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



This is just false because if they were completely independent (at least from our perspective) then you would not have to check time, before doing logic. However you do you have to check time (to see if time differences matter before doing logic). For example when looking for contradiction, you have to check to see if the issue changes over time, before calling something a contradiction.



> The question is not what did God think first, then second, but what is the _logical_ order of his decrees vs the order they were carried out.



The problem off the bat is to justify the assertion that God has logical orders just like humans do. We have to order things due to finite limitations. God has no such limitation so why should he necessarily think like we do.



> Again, logic is not a function of time. A true proposition is true for all times, places, and people.



Time is a component of the definition of the law of non contradiction. You have to check to see how time acts on the proposition before you can decide how to logically deal with it.


You agree that over time, propositions change. So that means before you can apply certain logical rules, you have to check to see if the prop has changed. That rules out the claim that logic is independent from time.



> A and ~A is always false, A or ~A is always true, A is A is always true.
> 
> These three laws of logic are about the state of propositional truth, the elements of knowledge which are not functions of time, place, or person.



My claim is that as a finite creature in God's universe, you cannot do logic independent of time, and none of your counters work.

CT


----------



## Civbert (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...


 I don't know what your talking about here. A contradiction is a contradiction (law of identity). Something can not "be" a contradiction and "not-be" a contradiction at a later time.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...


 Logical order is not temporal. He may not "think" using processes we do - God is always aware of what he knows - but the logical order of his thoughts is still the same or we could not know them and the Word would be meaningless. 



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...


 No, you don't. Time does not act on a proposition. If you went to the zoo yesterday - then on June 2010, it is true you went to the zoo in June 2006. That truth will always be true, no matter who knows it, or when, or where - you went to the zoo in June 2006. Time may be an integral element to the meaning of a statement, but the propositional meaning of the statement does not change with time. 



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> You agree that over time, propositions change.


 No, they don't.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> So that means before you can apply certain logical rules, you have to check to see if the prop has changed.


 No, you don't. 



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> That rules out the claim that logic is independent from time.


 No, it doesn't.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



When we "think" logically, our thoughts realize the logical forms of the propositions that make up our knowledge. But the forms that the laws of logic describe do not change with time - otherwise knowledge and logical thinking become impossible. You have a basic misunderstanding about the nature of propositional truth. 

Propositions do not change meaning or truth values over time. A written statement may have different meaning as it applies to different contexts of time and place and situations - but the propositional meaning of a given statement is fixed. 

Again, review the laws of logic. There is not element of time in the laws. A and ~A is false. This never changes. A or ~A is true. Forever. A is A is true always. 

Equivocation - when one uses a term or a statement in reference to more than one time, person, place, situation. When you equivocate you can seem to say A and ~A is true because you have actually used two different propositions in place of A. But logic demands that for your reasoning to be valid, your A must always refer to the same proposition in your line of reasoning. 

When you change the time or place or person, you are using a _different_ proposition. It's not the same proposition with a different meaning - a proposition _is_ the meaning of a statement. Since a proposition can not change time, place, person, etc. - it's truth state and meaning will never change when examined from another place, time, person, etc.







[Edited on 6-28-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> When we "think" logically, our thoughts realize the logical forms of the propositions that make up our knowledge. But the forms that the laws of logic describe do not change with time - otherwise knowledge and logical thinking become impossible. You have a basic misunderstanding about the nature of propositional truth.



The problem is that you missed the entire point. You cannot use the laws of logic without bringing time into the equation. If you do not bring time into the equation then you will not be able to determine the meaning. If you do not know the meaning of a proposition then you cannot determine if it is contradictory to something else.

Remember I never said anything about forms changing, I made the claim concerning the use. If you cannot use it independent then why claim that it is independent?

But just to be sure. Give me a link to a definition of the law of non contradiction. Not some version you made up. It is unfathomable for you to make the claim that it is independent from time.



> Propositions do not change meaning or truth values over time. A written statement may have different meaning as it applies to different contexts of time and place and situations - but the propositional meaning of a given statement is fixed.



All you are doing here is saying, once the context has been determined, the meaning stays the same, and you can use the laws of logic. Which is exactly my point. Time is necessary in determining the context.




> Again, review the laws of logic. There is not element of time in the laws. A and ~A is false. This never changes. A or ~A is true. Forever. A is A is true always.



Give me a link to a site that defines the law of contradiction and see if time is a component of the definition?



> Equivocation - when one uses a term or a statement in reference to more than one time, person, place, situation. When you equivocate you can seem to say A and ~A is true because you have actually used two different propositions in place of A. But logic demands that for your reasoning to be valid, your A must always refer to the same proposition in your line of reasoning.



If you do not take time into consideration, how do you know if you have equivocated or not? Again logic is dependent on time.



> When you change the time or place or person, you are using a _different_ proposition. It's not the same proposition with a different meaning - a proposition _is_ the meaning of a statement. Since a proposition can not change time, place, person, etc. - it's truth state and meaning will never change when examined from another place, time, person, etc.



So the only way you can make your argument is to say that you can use the laws of logic without knowing what a proposition means. And the answer is obvious, you cannot. So your independence thesis fails.

CT


----------



## Civbert (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...


 Incorrect. Time is not a necessary variable in determining the meaning of a proposition. Some propositions have time references, and some do not. 



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> Remember I never said anything about forms changing, I made the claim concerning the use. If you cannot use it independent then why claim that it is independent?


The laws of logic are not a process - they are themselves propositions about the state of things. And they make no reference to time.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> But just to be sure. Give me a link to a definition of the law of non contradiction. Not some version you made up. It is unfathomable for you to make the claim that it is independent from time.



I did give you a definition. A & ~A is false. 



> _from the Logic Classroom _
> 
> The law of contradiction states that no statement can be both true and false; or, A and not-A is a contradiction and always false: thus, not both A and not-A.





> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 "No lie is of the truth." (1 John 2:21) - this does not have any reference to time - and one does not need any time reference to understand its meaning. Many proposition have no necessary time reference in order to understand them.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



~(A & ~A) is the law of contradiction. It is false the a things is and is not. A proposition can not be both true and false. 



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. I have show it does not.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, you can use logic without knowing the meaning of propositions - formal logic is formal. The validity of inference is a function of form, not content. So even if you do not know the meaning of A B and C, it is still true that 
if A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C.

And it is true that: ~p + ~q = ~( p & q )

And it is true that if (a implies b) and a, then b. 

And not once did I need to give a time reference. 

And for meaning - no time reference is critical to understand the following:

"Again logic is dependent on time." 

"I love pizza".

"Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

"All cows give milk."

"God is love."

Now here's a few statements where a time reference is critical to understanding the meaning:

"Tomorrow I will go to the dentist."

"You always say that when we go to the movies."

"But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. "

"Last week I was pretty busy".


It's actually harder to find statements who's meaning depends on a time reference than not. And often the reference is because a specific "time" is the logical subject or category.


----------



## MW (Jun 28, 2006)

We merely have to look at the Calvinist contention against Arminianism and Amyraldianism to see that it is a legitimate process to define the order of God's decrees -- always keeping in mind, however, that we are dealing with the things decreed ad extra, not the intrinsic workings of God's mind.

If we were to ask, why did God choose this person over that, it would be prying. Those reasons rest with God alone. But to ask, what logical order do things decreed sustain to each other, is simply to follow the revelation of God in a path that it plainly leads us in.

Let's apply it to an uncontentious area -- creation. In God's order, the animals exist to serve man. Now God must have decreed it to be so. Have we pried into the secret things of the Lord by saying as much? Of course not.

As for the temporal element -- it only enters into the execution of God's decrees. It is impossible for us to speak about the things decreed only if we do not distinguish between the decree and its execution.

Blessings!


----------



## JoshCasey (Nov 2, 2006)

I have two questions for you guys. Remember I'm still just a teenager without your knowledge. 

Would someone here mind providing a brief description of supralapsarianism? I had always linked it to hyperCalvinism, before going over this thread.

For armourbearer - why not simply assign the reason for God's unconditional election to His will? For this very reason have I raised you up... so that I mihgt demonstrate my power through you...

Second, I know this has been mentioned elsewhere in this topic, but isn't the infralapsarian view at least implied in the creeds? Going through the canons of Dort, it always refers to God's overt actions in bringing His elect to faith, but when it comes to the reprobate, they are simply "passed by". The WCF says something similar.

CoD: Article 6: God's Eternal Decision
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act--unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just--of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God's Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.


WCF: 3 VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.


Although I will admit that at least one section in the WCF seems supra:

WCF III:III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death, 

But doesn't that contradict itself? Or does it mean that while the sin and unrepentance of the reprobate are not caused by God, their predestination is? I'm somewhat confused.


----------



## JM (Jan 18, 2007)

Found this, what do you think:


> Infralapsarianism can be technically defined as God decreeing salvation because of the fall. Supralapsarianism is defined as God decreeing both the fall and salvation based upon no condition whatsoever. In essence infralapsarianism is here seen to closely parallel the Arminian doctrine of conditional election. Infralapsarianism must end with that conclusion. For if God decreed salvation because of the fall, for God to be consistent in His decree He must have decreed election because of the activity of the one who had fallen. This is not logic supporting supralapsarianism; rather this is the logic of infralapsarianism. There are many more logical conclusions to which infralapsarianism leads, however, we will examine the Biblical position of supralapsarianism.



It seems if someone is less Calvinist then we believe Calvinism to be, they become classed as Arminians. I think the same is often said, "a hyper-Calvinist is anyone more Calvinist then me."

~JM~


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 18, 2007)

Calvinism is pretty definable. People can be Calvinists and just hold the Canons of Dordt. Frankly, its pretty ridiculous for an infra to accuse all supralapsarians of hyper-calvinism, and equally stupid for a supra to accuse all infralapsarians of implicit arminianism. What does history teach us? It teaches us that there are a host of infralapsarians, most of whom never once even twitched toward arminiamism, and a much lesser number of supralapsarians, but most of them weren't hypercalvinists.

So if we can take anything from the historical observation concerning the "drift" of these positions, both approaches seem to be pretty theologically stable, all things considered.


----------



## JM (Jan 22, 2007)

Reymond's ordering does work nicely, V. Cheung agrees and adds:

Supralapsarianism is the teleological order and infralapsarianism is the historical order. Since the purpose for discussing the order of the eternal decrees is to discover the logical arrangement of the formulation, and not the historical order of the plan's execution, supralapsarianism is the biblical position.


----------



## JoshCasey (Jan 27, 2007)

Hmmm.... Well, I admit I'm not confident on the issue, but I would probably classify myself as an infra, with some definite supra tendencies. As I said in my previous post, I'd always associated supra with double predestination, which in my mind isn't a big deal to someone who believes in unconditional election, since that's kind of implied.


----------



## JM (Jan 27, 2007)

> Double predestination is mainstream Calvinism. Here’s a classic statement:
> 
> “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death” (WCF 3:3).



http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/election-reprobation.html

This might help.

j


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 27, 2007)

JoshCasey said:


> Hmmm.... Well, I admit I'm not confident on the issue, but I would probably classify myself as an infra, with some definite supra tendencies. As I said in my previous post, I'd always associated supra with double predestination, which in my mind isn't a big deal to someone who believes in unconditional election, since that's kind of implied.


Yeah, double predestination (whether infra/supra style) is a logical implication of a view of election. It is here that most Lutherans fall into a cop-out mode, saying that they believe only in Single Predestination, thereby accounting for the Elect, but leaving the way the damned are damned as a "tension" in the Scriptures. It is to the credit of Luther and C.F.W. Wathier that they understood and accepted this logical consequence.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 27, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Calvinism is pretty definable. People can be Calvinists and just hold the Canons of Dordt. Frankly, its pretty ridiculous for an infra to accuse all supralapsarians of hyper-calvinism, and equally stupid for a supra to accuse all infralapsarians of implicit arminianism. What does history teach us? It teaches us that there are a host of infralapsarians, most of whom never once even twitched toward arminiamism, and a much lesser number of supralapsarians, but most of them weren't hypercalvinists.
> 
> So if we can take anything from the historical observation concerning the "drift" of these positions, both approaches seem to be pretty theologically stable, all things considered.




I like this.


Infralapsarian rules!?!?!??? Oh, ok.


----------

