# Which are you? Supra or Infra & why.



## NB3K (May 25, 2011)

I happen to hold to the Supralapsarian position of the divine decrees, why? It is logical beyond be belief if one understand's the Sovereignty of God truly in all things.

And there seems to be tons of Scripture showing how much God would like to show man how much He thinks of HIm so I believe this is the position that exalts God in His proper place.

What say ye?


----------



## Peairtach (May 25, 2011)

Neither. God's mind is vastly superior to our puny way of thinking.


----------



## Romans922 (May 25, 2011)

Infralapsarian. Why? Because logically God had to decree to create man before He could choose some and reprobate some. He then also had to decree the fall of man before He could necessarily decree an elect and reprobate. He then had to decree sovereignly to choose an elect and pass by the rest leaving them in their sin.

Does this diminish God's sovereignty? Absolutely not, I don't think either view (Supra/Infra) diminishes God's sovereignty (after all isn't it a study of the decrees of God?). The question concerns the logical order of the decrees.


----------



## NB3K (May 25, 2011)

Ok the thing that holds me to Supra is not nescessary the order of the decrees, but that in Election and Reprobation, God is not said to simply "pass over them" but to simply reject them.

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> Neither. God's mind is vastly superior to our puny way of thinking.



I can respect that answer.

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

But I think the question is, how did God view man, in the act of "election" & "reprobation", was man "fallen" or just man. I have found that this is where people argue that there's no scriptural support for this.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 25, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Ok the thing that holds me to Supra is not nescessary the order of the decrees, but that in Election and Reprobation, God is not said to simply "pass over them" but to simply reject them.



infralapsarians believe in reprobation as well. Bavinck points this out. 

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism by Herman Bavinck


----------



## Romans922 (May 25, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Ok the thing that holds me to Supra is not nescessary the order of the decrees, but that in Election and Reprobation, God is not said to simply "pass over them" but to simply reject them.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------
> 
> ...


 

I don't think you can state things here that are contra-confessional, but I'm not the judge (moderator).

The Westminster Confession states in Chapter 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 praise of His glorious justice."


----------



## Wayne (May 25, 2011)

I've been told I have an Infra-iority complex.


----------



## discipulo (May 25, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> Neither. God's mind is vastly superior to our puny way of thinking.


 
 and yet I will approach it from another angle.

Supra or Infra? Well, I´m both ! why? Because one will tend to sacrifice some points of Scripture in order to choose one of the schemes.

And let's be honest, the schemes fall close to what is called Archetypal Theology. This is, Theology pretending to know what only God knows, as opposed to Ectypal Theology, Theology based on God's Revelation alone.

On the top of this, even God's Revelation is analogical, instead of univocal, it is Revelation accommodated to our finite minds, so always far from being exhaustive and comprehensive.

(Gordon Clark had problems with these principles though, so some of you Clarkians might therefore not agree) 

This is basically what Calvin suggested in his famous bay talk quote:

_For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with *little children*? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height._
Calvin's Institutes 1.13.1

Pretty much like Richard Tallach wrote above, we must acknowledge our limitations of apprehension, implicit in the distinction Creator – creature.

Nevertheless unlike Richard I didn't answer none but both (although I guess I also agree with the point he makes in his answer), as I think both schemes, and schemes they are, may help us in relation to each other, to apprehend a wider glimpse of God's hugeness. While only both schemes together can take into account different passages of Scripture.

(True also that our Reformed Confessions are in principle Infra Lapsarian, even if several Supra Lapsarian men were involved in drafting them, arguably to not exclude either). 

So in conclusion, I *strongly encourage *you to read Herman Bavinck's writing on the subject, link below.

These are what Klaas Schilder classified as the most beautiful pages ever written on Dogmatics.

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism by Herman Bavinck

PS.



Wayne said:


> I've been told I have an Infra-iority complex.


 

Better than the other right?


----------



## discipulo (May 25, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> > Ok the thing that holds me to Supra is not nescessary the order of the decrees, but that in Election and Reprobation, God is not said to simply "pass over them" but to simply reject them.
> ...



Sorry Boliver, only noticed now that you posted the same link, well it is never too much to direct folk to Bavinck's writings


----------



## FenderPriest (May 25, 2011)

I'm with the "neither" folks on this. I was a Supra-, but Bavinck's discussion in _Reformed Dogmatics_ convinced me that neither adequately deals with God.


----------



## NB3K (May 25, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> I don't think you can state things here that are contra-confessional, but I'm not the judge (moderator).



Yes true, but doesn't the Bible teach that God just does what ever HE wants to do with the Reprobate. I mean when Paul states that God is "fitting" "vessels of wrath" to the very end which is "destruction" for the praise of His glorious grace. It doesn't sound as if they're being merely passed by. And I think I am mixing apples with oranges???


----------



## MW (May 25, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> Neither. God's mind is vastly superior to our puny way of thinking.


 
This doesn't hinder theologians from observing that there are ordered relationships in God's purposes. Calvinists assert a specific relation of predestination to faith which is contrary to the Arminian way of looking at it. Given this commitment to examining the relationship of the things decreed there need be no reason for ignoring the question of how predestination relates to the fall.

The issue itself, when examined, reveals important differences which can arise with respect to our knowledge of God. Supralapsarians tend to think of God in terms of freedom; infralapsarians focus on His nature.

Finally, there are important doctrinal considerations tied up with the issue. (1) There is creation and redemption. Does creation represent an original purpose which the fall has destroyed? Is redemption a mere restoration of the created order, or a fulfilment of something higher to which the creation was designed to attain? (2) There are also Christological considerations. What emphasis does the pre-eminence of Christ have in one's theology? The New Testament (and the prophetic vision of the Old Testament) testifies that Jesus Christ is the I AM for whom all things are made? Even Adam was a figure of Christ to come.

I don't believe it is wise to pass this issue off as something inherently speculative. There is a profitable discussion underlying the disagreement if people are willing to examine a little deeper than the rhetoric usually allows.


----------



## Marrow Man (May 25, 2011)

John Girardeau asserts in _Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism_ that 1) many Arminian arguments against Calvinism are actually directed against supralapsarianism and 2) the Westminster Confession is an infralapsarian document.


----------



## torstar (May 25, 2011)

Marrow Man said:


> John Girardeau asserts in _Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism_ that 1) many Arminian arguments against Calvinism are actually directed against supralapsarianism and 2) the Westminster Confession is an infralapsarian document.


 

Haven't come across many assertions that the Reformed are not either supra or infra, with the majority in the latter category.

The middle ground seems safe between them.


----------



## discipulo (May 25, 2011)

Marrow Man said:


> John Girardeau asserts in _Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism_ that 1) many Arminian arguments against Calvinism are actually directed against supralapsarianism and 2) the Westminster Confession is an infralapsarian document.


 
Rev Winzer, like Pastor Tim quoted from Girardeau*, the reformed confessions are arguably infra lapsarian, and not explicitily so, there is no article defending one or the other order on the Decree,

isn't that a clear sign that we may be treading away from revealed ground when we want to arrive at a final formulation?

By this I mean that debating may help us to be more aware of God's greatness while pretending to make it final may be just falling into speculation.

For example, Robert Reymond, with all the respect that he should deserve from us, may have gone too far on this matter in his ST. 

(btw it is a privilege to be in the city Charleston, South Carolina, where this godly man, John L. Girardeau, was so greatly used by God in such a compassionate ministry with Christian slaves,
whom so dearly loved their Pastor)


----------



## torstar (May 25, 2011)

What did Reymond advise the world?

Boettner made a regrettable anti-Supra comment in his work...

If someone is going to make a big issue of it and I'm stuck in the car for a long trip, I let them speak first and agree with their point of view without saying much more.


----------



## MW (May 25, 2011)

discipulo said:


> Rev Winzer, like Pastor Tim quoted from Girardeau*, the reformed confessions are arguably infra lapsarian, and not explicitily so, there is no article defending one or the other order on the Decree,


 
I would argue that this is based on a misunderstanding of the point at which supralapsarianism is distinguished from infralapsarianism and a refusal to see that point distinctively articulated in the Westminster Confession. I won't repeat here what I have said on other threads. Suffice to say, the fact that the Confession teaches "infralapsarianism" with reference to the order of "salvation" does not warrant the conclusion that it is infralapsarian on the relation of the decree of predestination to the fall. It is the jump in logic which has led to the idea that the Confession is infralapsarian, but that jump in logic is easily refuted.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 25, 2011)

discipulo said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > NB3K said:
> ...



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## discipulo (May 25, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> > Rev Winzer, like Pastor Tim quoted from Girardeau*, the reformed confessions are arguably infra lapsarian, and not explicitily so, there is no article defending one or the other order on the Decree,
> ...


 
I wrote arguably because I know is not a consensual conclusion.

Rev Winzer, are your refering to the distinction between the Decree in its order and its further application?

I understand you may already have written on this, but it would be important to those who haven't read it if you could post here again -

Do you see susbtantial differences between the Westminster Standards and the 3FU on this particular matter?

Several continental theologians that subscribed the 3FU are also Supralapsarians, A. Kuyper being one of the most mentioned. 

Don't know where Ridderbos (Herman) stands on this matter though. Berkouwer got messed up in a decree only suited to the god Janus.


----------



## MW (May 26, 2011)

discipulo said:


> I understand you may already have written on this, but it would be important to those who haven't read it if you could post here again -


 
I can't locate the posts without an exhaustive search. Basically the point is this -- the supra scheme is identical to the infra scheme regarding the order of the decree in relation to salvation from the effects of the fall. Those who regard the Confession as infra draw attention to the "salvation order" without recognising that the supra scheme is in agreement with this. It is simply preposterous to suppose that because the supra scheme holds that man was predestined to life before the fall it does not hold to a predestination to salvation after the fall. Yet, time and again, this is the underlying assumption. The two are set in contrast when in fact they are complementary. The illustration I use is the idea of a train picking up passengers at different stops. The fact that the train picks up passenger A at stop Z and passenger B at stop Y means that passenger A is aboard the train at stop Y when passenger B boards the train.

On the neglect of supra elements in the Confession, note especially the language of 3.3. The statement does not depend on the supposition of the fall. "Everlasting life" is typical supra language as it removes the element of "salvation," which presupposes a fall. Further, 3.5 provides something additional with respect to the salvation of those who are predestined to life. This election in Christ is the starting point for the infra scheme, but it is the second point in the supra scheme. It appears in the confession as a second point of predestination. It is also noteworthy that the language of 3.5 is taken up by those theologians who expand and expound the teaching of the covenant of redemption, e.g., Rutherford, Goodwin, and they do so as a specification of predestination according to the supra scheme.

With respect to Dort, I haven't studied the historical sources in great depth. Those who have studied them tend to accept that it is infralapsarian -- even supralapsarians who subscribe to the 3 forms. That seems fairly weighty in my estimation. Unlike Westminster, it doesn't have any appearance of a two point exposition. Hence there is no trace of anything distinctively supra. On the other hand, the fact that it is specific to a class of doctrines, and is taken in connection with a broader confession and catechism, perhaps leaves the door open for saying that it was not intended to serve as a generalised scheme of doctrine, and so appeal to it for this issue is somewhat irrelevant. The Arminian controversy is only really concerned with predestination as it relates to salvation; the response of Dort is naturally conditioned on the terms set by the controversy.


----------



## JM (May 26, 2011)

The following article was once hosted online but I can no longer find it. The author suggested the 1689 was supra.



> In contrast, the 1689 Confession seems to advocate a far more definite stance on the lapsarian position. Firstly, in the 1689 Confession, the distinction between ‘predestination’ and ‘foreordination’ is collapsed. The revised section in 3.3 was changed to read, “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory some men and Angels are predestinated, or fore-ordained to Eternal Life.”35 Furthermore, in chapter 3.6, the addition of a comma36 before the phrase “being fallen in Adam” is far more suggestive of a reading which alludes to the temporal ordo salutis rather than the order of decrees sub specie aeternitatis. Following this reading, “the words, ‘being fallen in Adam’, do not imply that the elect when elected were contemplated as fallen in Adam. The words simply state an historical fact which explains the necessity of redemption by Christ and the other phases of salvation.” These two modifications of the Westminster Confession undoubtedly demonstrate the Baptist’s desire to subscribe to a supralapsarian understanding of the ordo decretorum. However, this definite stance on the lapsarian position does not necessarily call into question the Baptists’ use of the Westminster document. If the Westminster document is careful to avoid language which excludes one or other lapsarian position, then it clearly treats a specific lapsarian position as immaterial to the more immediate task of creating a Confession of Faith. That the Baptist Confession chooses to promote a supralapsarian ordo decretorum does not oppose the Westminster document, but rather elucidates the Westminster Confession so as to give it a more definite interpretation.


[old source link: http://www.sicliff.co.uk/jon/1689.pdf]


----------



## MW (May 26, 2011)

JM said:


> The following article was once hosted online but I can no longer find it. The author suggested the 1689 was supra.


 
The different terms, predestination and foreordination, was as typical of supralapsarians as infralapsarians. If anything, the omission of foreordination to eternal death, and the addition of the concept of preterition, is a movement towards the infra scheme.


----------



## NB3K (May 26, 2011)

Supralapsarian's don't believe God is restrained by anything, If God wants to create men for one purpose or another, he will do so, and whether are not He views them fallen or up right, it does not limit whatsoever He so pleases to do. For example from simple reasoning, you exist for either one end or another. The clay has been divided in such a way that God has so ordained two sets of pottery. THere will be Vessels of Wrath being Fitted for destruction, and there will be Vessels of Mercy prepared beforehand for glory (namely predestined) and this only happens because God has decided that He wants His name to be exalted throughout all of His creation. And God does what ever He so pleases to accomplish His purpose of be glorified! Sorry for the rant.

But this view would really change the way you think what it means to be Loved by God!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 26, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Supralapsarian's don't believe God is restrained by anything, If God wants to create men for one purpose or another, he will do so, and whether are not He views them fallen or up right, it does not limit whatsoever He so pleases to do



It is silly to think that infralapsarians do not think the same.


----------



## JonathanHunt (May 26, 2011)

I'm neither.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2011)

I'm Supra. See Jonathan is wrong. lol.


----------



## J. Dean (May 26, 2011)

I prefer supra, but since our salvation is not determined by either one, I'm not stressing over it.


----------



## NB3K (May 26, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> It is silly to think that infralapsarians do not think the same.



Well infralapsarians believe that in order for God to maintiain His just character He has to view man as fallen and guilty before He can damn them. [If not, they think this makes God the author of sin*], but it really doesn't, it maintains His Authority.

*Please correct me if you think I am wrong.


----------



## torstar (May 26, 2011)

Sorry, but I'm not convinced the OP has a decent grasp on what the two views mean based on comments on this and other threads...


----------



## Romans922 (May 26, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > It is silly to think that infralapsarians do not think the same.
> ...



As an infra, I don't agree that God is made the author of sin if I took the supra position. So I am correcting you! Everyone here agrees that He decreed the fall, and everyone here agrees that He is not the author of sin.


----------



## NB3K (May 26, 2011)

Marrow Man said:


> the Westminster Confession is an infralapsarian document.



Yes that is so true, but there were Supralapsariains at the Westminster Assembly, but as always the infralapsarians win.


----------



## greenbaggins (May 26, 2011)

The question is an interesting one, but I'm not sure that it is a helpful one. I have yet to see a discussion of the order of decrees that does not lapse into a temporal order, however much they might protest that it is a logical order being discussed. My friend Wes White has tried to convince me that it is an important discussion, and that Infra is the only biblical position. I'm not convinced. I think a discussion of the order of decrees is not especially helpful. They were all made in eternity, and they were all made in reference to each other. No one decree was made without all the others in view. To my mind, this undercuts the whole debate.


----------



## NB3K (May 26, 2011)

torstar said:


> Sorry, but I'm not convinced the OP has a decent grasp on what the two views mean based on comments on this and other threads...



§ 2. Supralapsarianism.

First, the supralapsarian scheme. According to this view, God in order to manifest his grace and justice selected from creatable men (i.e., from men to be created) a certain number to be vessels of mercy, and certain others to be vessels of wrath. In the order of thought, election and reprobation precede the purpose to create and to permit the fall. Creation is in order to redemption. God creates some to be saved, and others to be lost. [Hodge Vol 2 page 316]

§ 3. Infralapsarianism.

According to the infralapsarian doctrine, God, with the design to reveal his own glory, that is, the perfections of his own nature, determined to create the world, secondly, to permit the fall of man; thirdly, to elect from the mass of fallen men a multitude whom no man could number as “vessels of mercy;” fourthly, to send his Son for their redemption; and, fifthly, to leave the residue of mankind, as He left the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins. [Hodge Vol. 2 pages 319-320]

The grasp that I do have is: between these two views, namely the "supra" does not taken into acount whether or not man is fallen, & the "infra" does. And you are right, that I have a very limited grasp on this. This is why I need to be taught why people believe what they believe, because we all gain the more.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (May 26, 2011)

J. V. Fesko's article "The Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism: Calvin and the Divines" in 'The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century Volume 2' is worth checking out. I believe it is a shorter version of his Phd at Aberdeen.


----------



## NB3K (May 26, 2011)

NB3K said:


> According to this view, God in order to manifest his grace and justice selected from creatable men (i.e., from men to be created) a certain number to be vessels of mercy, and certain others to be vessels of wrath.



Supra's view the whole end of all creation is for the manifestation of God's grace and justice, and therefore without considering what the nature of the clay was before He formed it decided what the vessel's purpose would be to exist. Now the Infra would scream that's a gross misrepresentation of God's Holiness & Righteouseness? That God would or is it could never damn something that is neither viewed as fallen or upright.

Is this correct?


----------



## NB3K (May 26, 2011)

4.Perhaps an easier way to look at the supra/infra issue is to ask about the objects of election. In election, was God choosing people out of a fallen mass of humanity, or from a mass of humanity irrespective of the fall? This is the way that the debate arose, and the ordering of decrees was a logical mechanism for evaluating it. By addressing the issue as it touches upon the objects of election, we are able avoid mere speculation and approach it in a more exegetical and scriptural manner. The classic passage is Romans 9:20-23. The lump of clay, by analogy, is the object God’s election. The Christian, in understanding this text, asks, “Are we to understand this lump as representing fallen humanity, or un-fallen humanity?” Supralapsarians say un-fallen, and Infralapsarians say fallen. 

In the end, the infralapsarians are not in a better position than the Supralapsarians. Both groups admit that God ordained the fall. And, both agree that man was culpable in the fall, and that the reprobate is at fault for his damnation. So, the Reformed position, either way, must accept the fact that God foreordained the fall of humanity into sin. Infralapsarianism tries to ease the tension by saying that reprobation is just God leaving the fallen person in his own sinful condition. Nevertheless, the Infralapsarian still has to deal with the fact that God prearranged with certainty that the reprobate be within the fallen mass of humanity to begin with. It is only to remove the tension a very small step to say that God chose to leave some in their sinful state, since God determined that they would be a part of that sinful lump of clay from the start. Infralapsarians and Supralapsarians alike must humbly bow before the sovereignty of God.

It might come as a surprise to many, but some of the most practical theologians and evangelistic ministers of the 16th and 17th Century were Supralapsarians.
Jonathan Edwards and Supralapsarianism « Miscellanies.

THis is what I have thought the whole of the Supra/Infra debate was about.


----------



## Peairtach (May 26, 2011)

I've always thought that the decree that God would become Man is very significant and yet is not highlighted in these debates. Clearly God wanted to become Man (e.g. Proverbs 8), but didn't need to on His own account.

Here's Dabney's take on the subject:
*Systematic Theology 232-4*


> 5. All who call themselves Calvinists admit that God's
> decree is, in His mind, a cotemporaneous unit. Yet the attempt
> to assign an order to its relative parts, has led to three different
> schemes of predestination: that of the Supralapsarian, of the
> ...


----------



## tman (May 26, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you can state things here that are contra-confessional, but I'm not the judge (moderator).
> ...


 
You are dead on! There is no passiveness here, God is active. Call it "double predestination" or "equal ultimacy" it doesn't matter, God is the active One here. When was the last time you saw a clay pot form itself without the hands of a potter involved?

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM ----------

"Oh no, "Tman" is a hyper-calvinist!" I hear it coming already.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 26, 2011)

tman said:


> You are dead on! There is no passiveness here, God is active. Call it "double predestination" or "equal ultimacy" it doesn't matter, God is the active One here. When was the last time you saw a clay pot form itself without the hands of a potter involved?



Those who believe that God passed by (as the Confessions put it) also believe in double predestination.


----------



## JM (May 26, 2011)

tman said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> > Romans922 said:
> ...


----------



## dudley (May 26, 2011)

I believe we can not explain the infinite within our finite minds. That is one reason why so many people have difficulty understanding the Reformed Presbyterian teaching of Predestination. It is impossible for us to imagine that there really is no past present and future with God.. However I do know from my studies that The distinction between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the logical order of God's eternal decrees, not the timing of election. Neither side suggests that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)—long before Adam sinned. Both infralapsarians and supralapsarians (and even many Arminians) agree on this.


----------



## tman (May 26, 2011)

[QUOTE
Those who believe that God passed by (as the Confessions put it) also believe in double predestination.[/QUOTE]

Really? How do you predestine something that you are "passive" in?

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ----------




dudley said:


> I believe we can not explain the infinite within our finite minds. That is one reason why so many people have difficulty understanding the Reformed Presbyterian teaching of Predestination. It is impossible for us to imagine that there really is no past present and future with God.. However I do know from my studies that The distinction between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the logical order of God's eternal decrees, not the timing of election. Neither side suggests that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)—long before Adam sinned. Both infralapsarians and supralapsarians (and even many Arminians) agree on this.


 Thank you for your post. The problem lies in the order of our thinking. God starts at the end and plans backward.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 26, 2011)

Because God actively chose to pass over the non-elect before the beginning of time. His passing over is not a passive decision.


----------



## tman (May 26, 2011)

So the actions of the "non-elect" were outside of the sovereignty of God? The "forming" of the vessels of wrath wasn't really a forming. Paul was a liar?

---------- Post added at 08:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------

The vessels of mercy were formed by the hands of God, but the vessels of wrath were self formed? No hands needed.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 26, 2011)

tman said:


> So the actions of the "non-elect" were outside of the sovereignty of God? The "forming" of the vessels of wrath wasn't really a forming. Paul was a liar?


 

I never said anything remotely close to that.


----------



## tman (May 26, 2011)

What I am saying is that Romans 9 says that the reprobate are formed vessels also, that's ACTIVE forming by God, not a passive "go about your business" and form yourself.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 26, 2011)

tman said:


> What I am saying is that Romans 9 says that the reprobate are formed vessels also, that's ACTIVE forming by God, not a passive "go about your business" and form yourself.


 
I know what Romans 9 says. I am not advocating a "go about your business" attitude.


----------



## tman (May 26, 2011)

So where is the word "passive" in Romans. I only see the word "forming". I think that at sometime we have to believe that God is in total control (sovereign) and that He might be active in the forming of everyone, not just the elect.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 26, 2011)

tman said:


> So where is the word "passive" in Romans. I only see the word "forming". I think that at sometime we have to believe that God is in total control (sovereign) and that He might me active in the forming of everyone not just the elect.


 


Chaplainintraining said:


> Because God actively chose to pass over the non-elect before the beginning of time. His passing over is not a passive decision.



Notice again that I am not advocating a passive action of God.


----------



## tman (May 26, 2011)

So would you say that God is actively forming the reprobate vessels?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 26, 2011)

tman said:


> So would you say that God is actively forming the reprobate vessels?


 
Yes. Never stated otherwise.

---------- Post added at 10:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------

Romans 1 states that God gave the sinners over. He took His hands off. Obviously this cannot contradict Romans 9. The only answer is that any action God performs is actively forming the vessel (whether mankind views this action as passive or active). So God performing what can be perceived as a passive action is in fact an active action that helps form the vessel according to His will.

Thus God passing over the non-elect and double predestination coexist.


----------



## Peairtach (May 28, 2011)

We need to remember that the potter and the clay is an analogy.

God is active in His providence with respect to the reprobate but they are responsible for their sin, not God. If they aren't responsible for their sin, but God is, I'm sure that would be a great comfort to them in Hell.

I think it helps in our contemplation of the Divine decrees to remember that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were involved in them, and not just the Father alone.

Also as a counter to an impersonal choosing of an abstract number, we need to remember that God foreknew i.e. foreloved and chose us as sinners and as named individuals according to His wisdom.

How this ties in with the supra/infra debate I'll leave for others.


----------



## NB3K (May 28, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Romans 1 states that God gave the sinners over



So do those whom God gives over to their lust of their flesh & a reprobate mind, do they sin by necessity or by compulsion?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 28, 2011)

They sin on their own.


----------



## Peairtach (May 28, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Romans 1 states that God gave the sinners over
> ...



Well the language is of God _giving them over_ rather than God instilling or infusing sin in them or inspiring them to sin or imparting sin to them.


----------



## Michael (May 29, 2011)

There are plenty of scriptures that make this debate interesting but the two that really stick out to me are Rom 9:21 from the supra perspective and Rom 6:23 from the infra.

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.​


----------



## NB3K (May 29, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> They sin on their own



Yes that is true, but without faith everything they do is sin. They cannot cease to sin. I have heard one say that the plowing of the wicked is sin.


----------



## Esther W. (May 29, 2011)

All mankind fell in Adam. God chose to save some and to some others-use them as objects specifically to scorn. In other words we are all objects of wrath and in God choosing to save some to eternal salvation, He demonstrates his grace. For no other purpose are we saved.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 29, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > They sin on their own
> ...





> VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:[23] yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;[24] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;[25] nor to a right end, the glory of God,[26] they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:[27] and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[28]



Westminster agrees with you. Not sure what point you are trying to make though.

---------- Post added at 02:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------




NB3K said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > They sin on their own
> ...





> VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:[23] yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;[24] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;[25] nor to a right end, the glory of God,[26] they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:[27] and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[28]



Westminster agrees with you. Not sure what point you are trying to make though.


----------



## Peairtach (May 29, 2011)

The supralapsarians seem to put logic and freedom at the centre. We know that God is logical and that our logic is an analogy of His. But what God's logic is like in itself is a mystery.



> Q. 4. What is God?
> A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness,and truth.



God's following of His logic - which logic our minds follow analogically - is an aspect of His commitment to His truth. 

But God has other characteristics, which should not be forgotten in the Holy Trinity's decreeing whatsoever would come to pass, and in electing some and reprobating others e.g. wisdom, righteousness, holiness, goodness and love.

God's decrees don't just reflect God's freedom and logic but also His wisdom, righteousness/justice, holiness, goodness and love, and commitment to truth generally.


----------



## tman (Jun 1, 2011)

My original question still hasn't been answered. If the vessels of wrath are "FORMED" by the potter (GOD) then is God active in their forming? Would "equal ultimacy" be true? I'm not saying that the vessels of wrath aren't responsible for their sin, they are, as are we.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 1, 2011)

tman said:


> My original question still hasn't been answered. If the vessels of wrath are "FORMED" by the potter (GOD) then is God active in their forming? Would "equal ultimacy" be true? I'm not saying that the vessels of wrath aren't responsible for their sin, they are, as are we.


 
Check post 51.


----------



## NB3K (Jun 1, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Not sure what point you are trying to make though.



Yes men sin by their own "free will", but if God does not regenerate them and plant the seed of faith in them, they will continue to sin by necessity.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 AM ----------




tman said:


> Would "equal ultimacy" be true?



I think there are specific examples in scriptures where equal ultimacy could be defended, [JOB 12 and the Pharaoh account]but I don't believe equal ultimacy is a general rule of how God works in the hearts of every man.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 1, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Yes men sin by their own "free will", but if God does not regenerate them and plant the seed of faith in them, they will continue to sin by necessity



Yes, those of the flesh follow after the flesh.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 1, 2011)

*Jason*


> they will continue to sin by necessity



People sin freely and responsibly otherwise they are not guilty for what they do.A moral necessity to sin is different from a metaphysical necessity and is a defect of the will. Otherwise we're letting people off the hook and are saying that they're not responsible for their sinning.

*tman*


> My original question still hasn't been answered. If the vessels of wrath are "FORMED" by the potter (GOD) then is God active in their forming? Would "equal ultimacy" be true? I'm not saying that the vessels of wrath aren't responsible for their sin, they are, as are we.



Well this is where a simple "equal ultimacy" breaks down. God isn't responsible for sin - although He foreordained it. Man is freely responsible and therefore guilty of sin. But God _is_ responsible for grace - which He also foreordained.

God ordains the free acts of Man both good and bad.


----------

