# Are you infra or supra and why?



## C. Matthew McMahon




----------



## fredtgreco

Infra, because I think that the Confession is implicitly infra (I couldn't resist! )

Also, it appears to me to reflect God's electing of existing people, whereas supra contemplates God electing people in abstract.


----------



## Guest

Supra. 

Revelation 13:8 (ESV)
. . .and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.


Why did you leave out Sub-lapsarians ? ? ?


----------



## luvroftheWord

Probably because sublaps are only 4 pointers. That's my guess.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:74db804861][i:74db804861]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:74db804861]
Supra. 

Revelation 13:8 (ESV)
. . .and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.
[/quote:74db804861]

Visi,

How is that verse opposed to infralapsarianism, which posits the election of some before the creation of the world, just not before the decree to create? That verse would only imply the creation of the world (foundations).


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

The distinction between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the logical order of God's eternal decrees, not the timing of election

The logical order according to supra: (predestination - fall)
1. a decree determining the purpose of all things, namely, the revelation of God's virtues; specifically, the revelation of his mercy in the salvation of a definite number of possible men; and the revelation of his justice in the perdition of another definite number of possible men 
2. a decree to create the men thus elected and reprobated. 
3. a decree to permit them to fall. 
4. a decree to provide a Mediator for the elect and through him to justify them, and to condemn the reprobate. 
Ps. 115:3; Prov. 16:4; Is. 10:15; 45:9; Jer. 18:6; Matt. 20:15; Rom. 9:17, 19-21

Elect some, reprobate rest 
Create 
Permit Fall 
Provide salvation for elect 
Call elect to salvation


The logical order according to infra: (fall - predestination)
1. a decree to create man in holiness and blessedness. 
2. a decree to permit man to fall. 
3. a decree to elect some out of this fallen multitude and to leave others in their misery. 
4. a decree to bring about the salvation of the elect through Christ.
Deut. 7:6-8; Matt. 12:25, 26; John 15:19; Rom. 9:15, 16; Eph. 1:4-12; II Tim. 1:9

Create 
Permit Fall 
Elect some, pass over the rest 
Provide salvation for elect 
Call elect to salvation


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Paul, my avatar looks crystal clear to me. One of the best pictures I have taken. Why, does it look funny to YOU?


----------



## sastark

[quote:00ad4587c5][i:00ad4587c5]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:00ad4587c5]
The logical order according to infra: (fall - predestination)
1. a decree to create man in holiness and blessedness. 
2. a decree to permit man to fall. 
3. a decree to elect some out of this fallen multitude and to leave others in their misery. 
4. a decree to bring about the salvation of the elect through Christ.
Deut. 7:6-8; Matt. 12:25, 26; John 15:19; Rom. 9:15, 16; Eph. 1:4-12; II Tim. 1:9
[/quote:00ad4587c5]

Right off the bat I have to admit I know extremely little about this topic, (but that won't keep me from opening my big mouth! :yawn: )

That having been said, the infra- position makes it sound as if God's decree to save the elect was a result of man's action. Am I understanding that correctly?

Ok, now to go read the scripture proofs you posted.

Fred- could you point me to exactly where the WCF is infra. I'm sure that would help me understand this issue much better. Thanks!


----------



## Guest

[quote:bb63947c75]
How is that verse opposed to infralapsarianism, which posits the election of some before the creation of the world, just not before the decree to create? That verse would only imply the creation of the world (foundations). 
[/quote:bb63947c75]

I believe the purpose of glorifying the Son is the reason for creation. Therefore it precedes it in the election of those who will be recipients of the redemption, before the creation of those recipients.

But seriously, I will not get too dogmatic over this issue. I still say all these decisions are simultaneous within the mind of God. There really probably is no linear progression at all.

May God forgive me for even speculating about the holy mysteries of His eternal wisdom and knowlegde.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I've seen the propositions of supra and infra spelled out slightly differently than Matt did, but the essence is the same.

I'm infra primarily because it doesn't make sense to me that God could logically decree to save when he hadn't even decreed to create! Furthermore, within the idea of being &quot;saved&quot; is the idea that we are being saved from something... and so I fail to see how God could have decreed to save before he had decreed the reason someone would NEED TO BE saved.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I think Visigoth is on track - 

I dont' think we can think about these positions in a linear fashion. Maybe both are right but in different &quot;senses&quot; (Compound and divided sense?).


----------



## Guest

So how would it relate to the doctrines of Perichoresis ? ? I have not had a chance to read Gregory Nazianzus yet.


----------



## pastorway

Infra for me.......

Why would God elect to salvation before He had decreed/permitted the fall? Before the fall was a determined factor there would have been no need for a decree to save the elect.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:e048154506][i:e048154506]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:e048154506]
I'm down with the Visigoth/Webmaster answer. To me this seems like a &quot;hidden things belong to the Lord&quot; issue.

Paul [/quote:e048154506]

Agreed. Anyone who is willing to make this issue THE issue or an issue to die over usually has abberant theology, or at least a wrong emphasis on matters not clear in the Word.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I'm an unsatified supra  I believe God decreed to save sinful men in Christ, and so decreed everything else to follow (i.e. creation,Fall, etc). But it really is not an important issue. The Bible only mentions one decree  

Puritan Sailor


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Am I wrong or is there also a Ultralapsarian view? It seemed to me there were three views and I just wanted a refresher on the matter.


----------



## VanVos

I would say supra because I think we should see the order of God decrees telelogically. In others words what was his ultimate purpose, is it not election and reprobation?, whether that be of angels or man.

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by VanVos]


----------



## johnny_redeemed

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Infra for me.......
> 
> Why would God elect to salvation before He had decreed/permitted the fall? Before the fall was a determined factor there would have been no need for a decree to save the elect.
> 
> Phillip



 and 



I agree with infra, but I like the question about why it matters if the Bible does not speak clearly on this? Just a question.


----------



## Me Died Blue

This may be because I'm misunderstanding it, but I don't even see how the supra view makes any sense whatsoever - it essentially says, "God decreed to save sinful men before He declared the Fall." How can he logically not decree the Fall until _after_ decreeing to save people _from it_?


----------



## VanVos

I recommend Robert Reymond work on revised supralapsarianism. I think you can read about it in his book A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

VanVos

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by VanVos]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dabney mentions three views, but one is called Hypothetic Universalist. He doesn't like Supra or Sub. I'll have to find my Hoeksema Reformed Dogmatics sense one of you referenced it.
So is the Hypothetic Scheme Infra? He is referencing Turrettin in criticizing Supra and Sub. I can't make out the reference. It looks weird. It is Loc. 4. Qu. 18 s 5. Does that look correct? Is that on the Puritan Bookshelf Cd's?
I am relearning stuff I have looked at years ago. Just wait till I get to eschatology. I know I landed hard on the Amill side even though my mentor Dr. Blackwood was a Postmill. It's all coming back to me slowly.
Thanks for your Patience, Randy


----------



## Authorised

INFRALAPSARIAN, n. 
One who ventures to believe that Adam need not have sinned unless he had a mind to -- in opposition to the Supralapsarians, who hold that that luckless person's fall was decreed from the beginning. Infralapsarians are sometimes called Sublapsarians without material effect upon the importance and lucidity of their views about Adam. 


Two theologues once, as they wended their way
To chapel, engaged in colloquial fray --
An earnest logomachy, bitter as gall,
Concerning poor Adam and what made him fall.
"'Twas Predestination," cried one -- "for the Lord
Decreed he should fall of his own accord."
"Not so -- 'twas Free will," the other maintained,
"Which led him to choose what the Lord had ordained."
So fierce and so fiery grew the debate
That nothing but bloodshed their dudgeon could sate;
So off flew their cassocks and caps to the ground
And, moved by the spirit, their hands went round.
Ere either had proved his theology right
By winning, or even beginning, the fight,
A gray old professor of Latin came by,
A staff in his hand and a scowl in his eye,
And learning the cause of their quarrel (for still
As they clumsily sparred they disputed with skill
Of foreordination freedom of will)
Cried: "Sirrahs! this reasonless warfare compose:
Atwixt ye's no difference worthy of blows.
The sects ye belong to -- I'm ready to swear
Ye wrongly interpret the names that they bear.
You -- Infralapsarian son of a clown! --
Should only contend that Adam slipped down;
While you -- you Supralapsarian pup! --
Should nothing aver but that Adam slipped up.
It's all the same whether up or down
You slip on a peel of banana brown.
Even Adam analyzed not his blunder,
But thought he had slipped on a peal of thunder!
G.J.


--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary


----------



## Me Died Blue

How can God logically decree to save men from something before even decreeing the existence of that thing? Am I misunderstanding the Supra view?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Chris,
This might help from the "logic" standpoint. 
Reymond's reformulated supra-view works something like this (VanVos mentioned his NSTCF above, however RR explained his view in my systematic theology course: Man and Sin, GPTS Winter Term January 2000)

Beginning with the premise: The rational mind works thusly: that which is first in order of execution is last in order of planning. Otherwise I am not thinking logically, or else am behaving randomly (or at least with insufficient forethought).

Example: I wake up this morning and decide to buy a car. I want to buy a car, but in order to do that I need to be at the dealership, with money. But to do that I must get there (with money). But to do that I must stop by a bank. But to do that I must leave my house. But in order to do that I must first get dressed. But in order to do that I must first get out of bed.

Execute the planned steps laid out in reverse order, and you have your car.

With salvation, Reymond begins with this goal: God intends to glorify himself maximally by the election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ. In order to do that he needs to apply the redemptive work of Christ to them. In order to do that he needs to send Christ to redeem (die for) them. In order to do that he needs sinners (decree for the Fall). In order to do that he needs first to create them.

By executing the planned steps laid out in reverse order, God's redemptive plan is achieved.

I started out nothing and became an infra from an _historic_ perception of events, was introduced to Dabney's arguments about the inaptness of the issue (certainly from a dogmatic stance) and agreed *and still do* essentially with that stance, and Reymond showed me the beauties of the _logical_ approach to the issue. Ultimately we are (as Dabney wisely pointed out) attempting to probe the infinite mind of God here. "Who hath know the mind of the Lord?" We are trying to arrange the ONE DECREE into something we can put our mind around. Humility is definitely in order.


----------



## JWJ

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> With salvation, Reymond begins with this goal: God intends to glorify himself maximally by the election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ.



Yes, Romans 9 and other places imply that God intends to glorifying himself maximally by the doctrine of election. This includes both sides: the election of some men in Christ (displaying mercy and grace) and the election of some men to damnation (displaying wrath). Both of which will manifest the glory of God forever.

Jim


----------



## yeutter

If I remember right John H. Gerstner was Infra.
Herman Hoeksema was Supra.
Gordon Clark was Supra but he differed from Hoeksema on the order of decrees.
I have not found a compelling scriptural case to take a position.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

This may be of help:

Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition: Supra- and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, & Westminster 
By John V. Fesko


----------



## ChristianTrader

Webmaster (Should I respond to you as Matt?),
Does that book have any response to the logical position in defense of supra given by Bruce.

CT


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> This may be of help:
> 
> Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition: Supra- and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, & Westminster
> By John V. Fesko



I'll have to check this one out.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

I'm _neither_. I'm *translapsarian*. I believe the Bible presents an equal case for both and that somewhere near the throne of God in eternity, they even out. I'll _never_ have an infra vs supra debate because in one way, BOTH are right and we shouldn't break it down to a false 'this or that' dichotomy.

(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others; 
(2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated; 
(3) the decree to permit the fall; and 
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.

The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is: 
(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race; 
(2) the decree to permit the fall; 
(3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and 
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. 

The logical order of the decrees according to *translapsarians* is:
Deut. 29:29


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> I'm _neither_. I'm *translapsarian*. I believe the Bible presents an equal case for both and that somewhere near the throne of God in eternity, they even out. I'll _never_ have an infra vs supra debate because in one way, BOTH are right and we shouldn't break it down to a false 'this or that' dichotomy.
> 
> (1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others;
> (2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated;
> (3) the decree to permit the fall; and
> (4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
> 
> The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is:
> (1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race;
> (2) the decree to permit the fall;
> (3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and
> (4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
> 
> The logical order of the decrees according to *translapsarians* is:
> Deut. 29:29



Kerry,

When you are talking to an unbeliever and he asks how God can arbitrarily send some to hell, what do you answer?


----------



## RickyReformed

Curt Daniel, in his History of Calvinism series states that Van Til was a supralapsarian; and I heard John Gerstner on tape say he was an infralapsarian. 

Does this sound weird to anyone else? Didn't Gerstner write the intro to Englesma's _Hyper-calvinism and the Call of the Gospel_? 

Curt Daniel lecture titled "High Calvinism"
http://www.sermonaudio.com/play.asp?ID=83004123519

Phillip R. Johnson on Infra vs Supra:
http://www.fivesolas.com/sup_infr.htm

Also, can we all please repeat this mantra from Curt Daniel's "Hyper-Calvinism" lecture:
*"All hypers are supra; not all supra's are hyper."*
http://www.sermonaudio.com/play.asp?ID=83004124627


+1 Supra

[Edited on 25-11-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## RickyReformed

Oops, forgot to answer the "and why?" part:

http://www.rmiweb.org/books/theology2003.pdf
Page 102 , paragraph starting with, "As for the purpose of man's creation..." to page 104, ending with "'The LORD works _everything_ for his own ends - even the wicked for a day of disaster. (Proverbs 16:4)"


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

The LORD elected some for salvation and others for damnation before the foundation of the world BEFORE the fall and creation because God is outside of time. This is not a temporal issue, just like predestination and providence are largely not temporally related. It is not "confusing" or "wrong" to say that God accomplished election before the Fall took place because God is not inside our understanding of time.


----------



## Average Joey

> _Originally posted by _
> 
> 
> I believe the purpose of glorifying the Son is the reason for creation. Therefore it precedes it in the election of those who will be recipients of the redemption, before the creation of those recipients.
> 
> But seriously, I will not get too dogmatic over this issue. I still say all these decisions are simultaneous within the mind of God. There really probably is no linear progression at all.
> 
> May God forgive me for even speculating about the holy mysteries of His eternal wisdom and knowlegde.



Awesome post.I also speculate that the creation of man had to do with glorifying the Son.Of course who is to know for sure.It is something that I have thought about for a long time.May God forgive me also for speculating.Especially,coming from an uneducated fool such as I.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The LORD elected some for salvation and others for damnation before the foundation of the world BEFORE the fall and creation because God is outside of time. This is not a temporal issue, just like predestination and providence are largely not temporally related. It is not "confusing" or "wrong" to say that God accomplished election before the Fall took place because God is not inside our understanding of time.



Gabriel,

As far as I know, no one ever said this was about "time" since th decrees do not admit of time. Even the supra does not say that the decree to elect happens in time before others.

Having said that, would you care to try and answer my question above?


----------



## Average Joey

My guess is what man meant for evil God meant for good.Man fell but God in his infinite soverignity not only forgave man through Christ.I believe also that He bought us as his children by making us fellow heirs with His Son Jesus Christ.That is something that was not happening in the garden.I don`t know about you guys but the end of Revelation sounds much much better then the garden of Eden.I hope I am not walking on dangerous ground.Please rebuke me if so.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Fred asked|: "When you are talking to an unbeliever and he asks how God can arbitrarily send some to hell, what do you answer?"
> 
> All people are going to hell for sinning, so it couldn't be arbitrary. They violated objective law.
> 
> God chose to have mercy on some and this acording to his free will and good pleasure.



Would others agree with this statement? No catch here - For what it's worth I think it is accurate.

[Edited on 11/27/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Fred asked|: "When you are talking to an unbeliever and he asks how God can arbitrarily send some to hell, what do you answer?"
> 
> All people are going to hell for sinning, so it couldn't be arbitrary. They violated objective law.
> 
> God chose to have mercy on some and this acording to his free will and good pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would others agree with this statement? No catch here - For what it's worth I think it is accurate.
> 
> [Edited on 11/27/2004 by fredtgreco]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with it!
> 
> Fred, the infra/supra issue along with things like active/passive reprobation are things I wont touch with a ten-foot-pole. I find elements of both and I think they belong in the category of: "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts and my ways higher than your ways."
Click to expand...


I hate to tell you Paul (but I will, since we are on the same page --> go % !!) that a supra can't agree with it.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

In addition to the answer already given above (that all people already go to hell or are on their way there because of sin), somewhere, some way, somehow, they are still responsible for their behavior and I would take them to scripture (i.e. - that King God uses to punish Israel in Isaiah, the folks mentioned in 2 Thess and Rom. 1 and even Pharoah in Romans 9/Exodus). While I do not profess to know every jot and tittle of scripture, I _do_ know that God is just and righteous in all of His ways and that somewhere along the way, a full and satisfying explanation exists. 

In the meantime, you're responsible for YOU. So this day, the question is before you - Whom will YOU serve ?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Well it's because they hold to a strictly quantitiative view of God's vs. uur knowledge instead of a quantatative *and* qualatative difference. Probably would have sided with Clark in the infamous Clark-Van Til controversy.



Simpler than that:

in the supra scheme men are decreed to hell before sin and the fall is contemplated. That is the definition of supralapsarianism. So for the supra, he cannot say that men go to hell because of sin. Men go to hell to glorify God. That is a position that is tenable Biblically, but my guess is that only a tiny, tiny minority of folks would actually use that in talking with unbelievers.


----------



## cupotea

If I had to choose, I would be infra, solely because Jonathan Edwards was. But if I was honest, I would say I hold a Framian view. Frame says that such a debate is an attempt to read God's mind and His intention, which we are not privy to. Plus, the Bible is not clear on the subject.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Well it's because they hold to a strictly quantitiative view of God's vs. uur knowledge instead of a quantatative *and* qualatative difference. Probably would have sided with Clark in the infamous Clark-Van Til controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simpler than that:
> 
> in the supra scheme men are decreed to hell before sin and the fall is contemplated. That is the definition of supralapsarianism. So for the supra, he cannot say that men go to hell because of sin. Men go to hell to glorify God. That is a position that is tenable Biblically, but my guess is that only a tiny, tiny minority of folks would actually use that in talking with unbelievers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said above: I find elements of both and therefore will not dogmatically assert either.
> 
> Fred, what is your view on what Bruce wrote via Raymond?
Click to expand...


I would pose that Reymond is making an huge extra-Biblical assumption in saying:



> With salvation, Reymond begins with this goal: God intends to glorify himself maximally by the election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ.



We have no evidence that God would not be maximally glorified by the creation and sustaining of Adam in his original state. In fact, I could argue that Reymond's position makes God dependent on man - without man to redeem, God does not reach His maximum glory.

And Reymond still has no answer for my original query regarding evangelism. It is my contention that the Confession is implicitly infra. (By the way, that is Derek Thomas' position as well)


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> I'm _neither_. I'm *translapsarian*. I believe the Bible presents an equal case for both and that somewhere near the throne of God in eternity, they even out. I'll _never_ have an infra vs supra debate because in one way, BOTH are right and we shouldn't break it down to a false 'this or that' dichotomy.
> 
> (1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others;
> (2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated;
> (3) the decree to permit the fall; and
> (4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
> 
> The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is:
> (1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race;
> (2) the decree to permit the fall;
> (3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and
> (4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
> 
> The logical order of the decrees according to *translapsarians* is:
> Deut. 29:29
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerry,
> 
> When you are talking to an unbeliever and he asks how God can arbitrarily send some to hell, what do you answer?
Click to expand...


I would ask on what foundation is the claim that God is doing something arbitrary based?


----------



## Me Died Blue

If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?



BINGO!! 

If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!!
> 
> If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.
Click to expand...


I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!!
> 
> If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?
Click to expand...


It means that it would follow that God's condemning of people to hell is arbitrary. It is not based on His justice, since those condemned are condemned apart from sin, or reference to God's holiness. In fact, they are not even condemned as individuals, since God has not even contemplated them as created men.

I come back to my point regarding evangelism: what do you say when someone says, I can't understand why God would send anyone to hell ?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!!
> 
> If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?
Click to expand...


Infra: God decreed humanity's Fall into sin, then decreed some people to save from it (and bring to Heaven) and others to punish because of it (and send to hell).

Supra: God decreed to bring some people to Heaven and send others to hell, and after that decreed humanity's fall into sin.

So my objection to the supra view is that it asserts that death was decreed _before_ sin was decreed, whereas Scripture lists death as the _wages_ of sin, and thus an ontological _result of_ sin, which is impossible if it was decreed before sin was decreed.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!!
> 
> If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means that it would follow that God's condemning of people to hell is arbitrary. It is not based on His justice, since those condemned are condemned apart from sin, or reference to God's holiness. In fact, they are not even condemned as individuals, since God has not even contemplated them as created men.
> 
> I come back to my point regarding evangelism: what do you say when someone says, I can't understand why God would send anyone to hell ?
Click to expand...


Ill do this in reverse order. 

God created both the elect and the reprobates for his own
glory. Although the reprobates do not consciously glorify God, he gains glory for himself through them, so that he is glorified by the elect in their salvation and by the reprobates in their destruction. (Verses can be supplied if requested)

Next, the argument for God being arbitrary is an argument from silence. "God does not give us certain information therefore he must be arbitrary in his actions at this point". That doesnt fly.

Also I do not see how infra's can dodge this type of question, unless they say that either God did not decree the fall/sin etc (it just happened) or He had no choice but to decree the fall.

The question just becomes. I dont know why God would create evil/why God would decree the fall etc.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Infra: God decreed humanity's Fall into sin, then decreed some people to save from it (and bring to Heaven) and others to punish because of it (and send to hell).
> 
> Supra: God decreed to bring some people to Heaven and send others to hell, and after that decreed humanity's fall into sin.
> 
> So my objection to the supra view is that it asserts that death was decreed _before_ sin was decreed, whereas Scripture lists death as the _wages_ of sin, and thus an ontological _result of_ sin, which is impossible if it was decreed before sin was decreed.



Could you clarify what you mean by ontological?

CT


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!!
> 
> If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means that it would follow that God's condemning of people to hell is arbitrary. It is not based on His justice, since those condemned are condemned apart from sin, or reference to God's holiness. In fact, they are not even condemned as individuals, since God has not even contemplated them as created men.
> 
> I come back to my point regarding evangelism: what do you say when someone says, I can't understand why God would send anyone to hell ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ill do this in reverse order.
> 
> God created both the elect and the reprobates for his own
> glory. Although the reprobates do not consciously glorify God, he gains glory for himself through them, so that he is glorified by the elect in their salvation and by the reprobates in their destruction. (Verses can be supplied if requested)
> 
> Next, the argument for God being arbitrary is an argument from silence. "God does not give us certain information therefore he must be arbitrary in his actions at this point". That doesnt fly.
> 
> Also I do not see how infra's can dodge this type of question, unless they say that either God did not decree the fall/sin etc (it just happened) or He had no choice but to decree the fall.
> 
> The question just becomes. I dont know why God would create evil/why God would decree the fall etc.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


The question is not whether God is arbitrary _per se_. The question is whether God condemns a man to sin in contemplation of the man _qua _man, and in light of his desert for his sin, or whether he condemns man _in abstracto_, apart from any demerit at all.

It is perfectly within God's right to do what He wants with His creation - should He determine in his wisdom to permit the Fall and get glory by redeeming some out of the Fall, that is fine. the problem is that the supra cannot say to an unbeliever (or anyone really) that God sends men to hell for their sin. He does not in their scheme. The supra can only say that God condemns men to hell for His own good pleasure, which we cannot know, and that it is completely apart from sin.

The obvious problem with that is that it makes the law and evangelism tenuous at best. That is why earlier in this thread it was correctly stated: "not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists, but all hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians."


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Infra: God decreed humanity's Fall into sin, then decreed some people to save from it (and bring to Heaven) and others to punish because of it (and send to hell).
> 
> Supra: God decreed to bring some people to Heaven and send others to hell, and after that decreed humanity's fall into sin.
> 
> So my objection to the supra view is that it asserts that death was decreed _before_ sin was decreed, whereas Scripture lists death as the _wages_ of sin, and thus an ontological _result of_ sin, which is impossible if it was decreed before sin was decreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you clarify what you mean by ontological?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I just used that word to convey that, according to the supra view, reprobation was decreed "before" the Fall was in a logical sense, even though God is outside of time and they were thus done simultaneously by our concept of time. The point I was making is just as well made without that word inserted, in the way Paul rightly noted above.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The question is not whether God is arbitrary _per se_. The question is whether God condemns a man to sin in contemplation of the man _qua _man, and in light of his desert for his sin, or whether he condemns man _in abstracto_, apart from any demerit at all.



But does not the infra have to deal with the same charge of arbitrary when God chooses one man to go to hell for his sin and the other one to be one of the elect apart from any merit of one over the other?



> It is perfectly within God's right to do what He wants with His creation - should He determine in his wisdom to permit the Fall and get glory by redeeming some out of the Fall, that is fine. the problem is that the supra cannot say to an unbeliever (or anyone really) that God sends men to hell for their sin. He does not in their scheme. The supra can only say that God condemns men to hell for His own good pleasure, which we cannot know, and that it is completely apart from sin.



Okay and when are unbeliever asks why God decreed the fall in the first place (so that there will be elect and non-elect), wont you just have to say according to his good pleasure



> The obvious problem with that is that it makes the law and evangelism tenuous at best. That is why earlier in this thread it was correctly stated: "not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists, but all hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians."



Why are they tenuous? God decreed to us that we should do various things here on earth. I am really not following why you would consider them tenous?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!!
> 
> If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it contradicted Rom. 6:23 would be my guess.
Click to expand...


Why is there ar contradiction?

CT


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!!
> 
> If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it contradicted Rom. 6:23 would be my guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is there ar contradiction?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I have repeatedly explained it very concisely and simply, and you have never once attempted to answer or even acknowledge it, so I will say it again: The supra view asserts that the decree of death _precedes_ the decree of sin, whereas Romans 6:23 makes clear that death is the _wages_ of sin, and thus a _result_ of sin.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The question is not whether God is arbitrary _per se_. The question is whether God condemns a man to sin in contemplation of the man _qua _man, and in light of his desert for his sin, or whether he condemns man _in abstracto_, apart from any demerit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But does not the infra have to deal with the same charge of arbitrary when God chooses one man to go to hell for his sin and the other one to be one of the elect apart from any merit of one over the other?
Click to expand...


No, because men go to hell for their sin. The fact that God shows His mercy does not require Him to be merciful to all. If the infra has a problem it is to show why God is merciful to some. The supra has to explain why God condemns men apart from the concept of sin. Remember that the Fall is a decree of permission. God is not the _author _of sin. Even if we grant that God is somehow responsible for the Fall by decreeing it, the responsibility for sin still lies with Adam. For the supra, the Fall and sin are simply means to permit God to condemn men.



> Okay and when are unbeliever asks why God decreed the fall in the first place (so that there will be elect and non-elect), wont you just have to say according to his good pleasure



Yes, and we can also say that the very fact that God entered into covenant with Adam was gracious. God had no responsibility to promise Adam life for obedience, or to even tell him the explicit command. This was a gracious condescension on His part (WCF 7.1). But at least God is dealing with actual people and actual sin when He justly condemns them. Again, I am not really concerned with the sense of God's sovereignty. I am happy to give that to the unbeliever and he may reject it. What the supra cannot give the unbeliever is a sense of God's justice. The reprobate are condemned, ultimately, not for what they have done (sin) but at God's good pleasure. 



> The obvious problem with that is that it makes the law and evangelism tenuous at best. That is why earlier in this thread it was correctly stated: "not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists, but all hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they tenuous? God decreed to us that we should do various things here on earth. I am really not following why you would consider them tenous?
Click to expand...


Because the main focus on the gospel is on God being just and the justifier of the ungodly. It is very difficult for the supra to show God's justice, for the reasons I have stated above.

So I ask again, what do you say to an unbeliever when he says, "why am I going to hell?"


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I have repeatedly explained it very concisely and simply, and you have never once attempted to answer or even acknowledge it, so I will say it again: The supra view asserts that the decree of death _precedes_ the decree of sin, whereas Romans 6:23 makes clear that death is the _wages_ of sin, and thus a _result_ of sin.



Okay and I see no problem with saying that sin results in our eternal death in a supra view. You can get upset if you wish to do so. I do not see how the supra view is imcompatible with saying that the God has decreed the correspondence between sin and death. Therefore saying that the result of sin is death does not seem to contradict the supra view.

I do not see how you can have a problem unless you believe that there is some inherent property of sin to cause Death outside of God and His decrees etc.

CT


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I have repeatedly explained it very concisely and simply, and you have never once attempted to answer or even acknowledge it, so I will say it again: The supra view asserts that the decree of death _precedes_ the decree of sin, whereas Romans 6:23 makes clear that death is the _wages_ of sin, and thus a _result_ of sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay and I see no problem with saying that sin results in our eternal death in a supra view. You can get upset if you wish to do so. I do not see how the supra view is imcompatible with saying that the God has decreed the correspondence between sin and death. Therefore saying that the result of sin is death does not seem to contradict the supra view.
> 
> I do not see how you can have a problem unless you believe that there is some inherent property of sin to cause Death outside of God and His decrees etc.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I'm not upset about anything, and I hope you're not, either, as I don't know why anyone would be. That being said, how can you say that the supra view allows for death having its place as the result of sin, when the death was fully decreed before the sin was at all? According to the supra view, when death was decreed, there was not yet any decreed sin to cause it, so death cannot be seen as being the result of sin, which only came into the picture after the death was already set in place. In oder to affirm that death is a result of sin, one must hold that the sin was in the picture when the death was decreed.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I have repeatedly explained it very concisely and simply, and you have never once attempted to answer or even acknowledge it, so I will say it again: The supra view asserts that the decree of death _precedes_ the decree of sin, whereas Romans 6:23 makes clear that death is the _wages_ of sin, and thus a _result_ of sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay and I see no problem with saying that sin results in our eternal death in a supra view. You can get upset if you wish to do so. I do not see how the supra view is imcompatible with saying that the God has decreed the correspondence between sin and death. Therefore saying that the result of sin is death does not seem to contradict the supra view.
> 
> I do not see how you can have a problem unless you believe that there is some inherent property of sin to cause Death outside of God and His decrees etc.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


CT,

I think what Chris is trying to say is this simple:

Supra schema
Death ==> sin as a necessary means to achieve death

Infra schema
Sin ==> death as a necessary outcome of sin

In the supra schema, death is the cause of sin; in the infra, sin is the cause of death.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Exactly.


----------



## ChristianTrader

One quick question are we dealing with the supra as webmaster put forward on page one or the one put forward by Bruce on Page 2?

Recap of Reymond via Bruce:

1. The election of some sinners to salvation in Christ; the
reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind.
2. The application of the redemptive work of Christ to the elect
sinners.
3. The redemption of the elect sinners by the work of Christ.
4. The fall of man.
5. The creation of the world and man.

CT


----------



## Average Joey

I am kind of both.I believe God ordained the fall to happen and when it happened he chose out of the lump who would be saved and put away the rest.

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?

Remember that the verse is saying of THE SAME LUMP.I`d say that means the lost lump.After reading the whole chapter it seems to be refering to man in his lost state and who God would choose for salvation or use for God`s other purposes.

I may be wrong.Of course either way God is glorified!

[Edited on 12-2-2004 by Average Joey]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I was reading Bavink and he said both are false.



Where exactly does he say this? I am not doubting that he did, but am interested in finding various sources, especially those who are in disagreement with my current view.

CT


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Perhaps to clarify somethings here. The decree to reprobate is not the same as condemnation. Reprobation is God's sovereign choice to reject some. Condemnation is God ruling in regards to sin. So as one who leans supra, I have know problem saying, you will go to hell because of your sins. You stand condemned and responsible for your actions. Because God soveriegnly rejected them, it has no bearing on whether they are responsible for their actions, which is why they are condemned and sent to hell. They have meritted the wrath of God regardless of the eternal decree. The objections raised against supra thus far are the same that Arminians raise against all Calvinists. And I think the response is the same as well.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Perhaps to clarify somethings here. The decree to reprobate is not the same as condemnation. Reprobation is God's sovereign choice to reject some. Condemnation is God ruling in regards to sin. So as one who leans supra, I have know problem saying, you will go to hell because of your sins. You stand condemned and responsible for your actions. Because God soveriegnly rejected them, it has no bearing on whether they are responsible for their actions, which is why they are condemned and sent to hell. They have meritted the wrath of God regardless of the eternal decree. The objections raised against supra thus far are the same that Arminians raise against all Calvinists. And I think the response is the same as well.



Patrick,

You are begging the question. Reject to what? Hell, is the obvious answer. Reprobation is the consignment to eternal punishment of a certain portion of the human race (not contemplated as individuals in the supra scheme)


----------



## twogunfighter

> The objections raised against supra thus far are the same that Arminians raise against all Calvinists. And I think the response is the same as well.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> The objections raised against supra thus far are the same that Arminians raise against all Calvinists. And I think the response is the same as well.



Actually, they're not. I could care less about man's free will in the face of God's sovereignty. I am concerned for God's justice. God judges sin, He does not judge men apart from sin and then provide for sin to allow judgment.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Perhaps to clarify somethings here. The decree to reprobate is not the same as condemnation. Reprobation is God's sovereign choice to reject some. Condemnation is God ruling in regards to sin. So as one who leans supra, I have know problem saying, you will go to hell because of your sins. You stand condemned and responsible for your actions. Because God soveriegnly rejected them, it has no bearing on whether they are responsible for their actions, which is why they are condemned and sent to hell. They have meritted the wrath of God regardless of the eternal decree. The objections raised against supra thus far are the same that Arminians raise against all Calvinists. And I think the response is the same as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> You are begging the question. Reject to what? Hell, is the obvious answer. Reprobation is the consignment to eternal punishment of a certain portion of the human race (not contemplated as individuals in the supra scheme)
Click to expand...


I don't hold to the traditional supra scheme. If I had to pick one it would be Reymond's formulation. 

As I understand it, God soveriegnly rejects to make them His people and withholds His favor. Reprobation/election is a soveriegn decree made in His good pleasure, not grounded upon the actions of men. But condemnation is grounded upon man's sin, in which he merits hell.


----------



## bigheavyq

Infra definitely, not just because of what has been mentioned as far as God's justice, but because of covenant. The Edenic Covenant has a certain advantage point inherent in it. It's Paradise. The New Heavens and Earth are Paradise Restored. The Edenic Covenant is a Blueprint for dominion. Before the fall, God had a plan laid in this covenant. Yes, God knew Adam would fall, but this Covenant is there for a reason. Infralapsarianism is implied in the creation order.


----------



## Infralap

Are there any advantges to sharing the gospel from a Supra position? Could being a Supra robbed you of the Love of God and diminish the atonement of Christ? ...

This are some of the questions that come into my mind of why I am not a Supra...

Yours in Christ
Infralap


----------



## Average Joey

> _Originally posted by Infralap_
> Are there any advantges to sharing the gospel from a Supra position? Could being a Supra robbed you of the Love of God and diminish the atonement of Christ? ...
> 
> This are some of the questions that come into my mind of why I am not a Supra...
> 
> Yours in Christ
> Infralap



I agree.It`s just like the whole Calvinist belief.Maybe it is not good to walk up to someone and say God has chosen you.Feed the babes with milk before moving on with meat.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Focusing on election is getting slightly off topic, but beside the fact that the argument above seems rather a _non sequiter,_ 
as well as _ad ignorantum_ (i.e. "I'm not a supra, therefore if I was, I think I'd lose my percieved infra-adantages, have a low view of the atonement, etc."), 
it's just not true that election is an "adult" doctrine.

Paul opens his first letter to the Thessalonians--a church he founded in less than a month, had to flee from, and wrote back to within a couple months probably--with the language of predestination. And he accompanies it with ZERO explanation. Its as if he expects these elementary Christians to understand what he means with but a little reflection on his brief stay with them (note the language of recollection in that first chapter). 

In other words, its a safe inference that *election and predestination* form an essential part of Paul's _basic gospel presentation._ Election certainly isn't a difficult doctrine to *understand.* What's hard for most sinners is accepting it as TRUTH. The doctrine of election is the _consumate_ attack on human pride, and as such ought to be used from the beginning. Breaking up PRIDE'S seat only gets harder where it settles back comfortably into the new believer's life. Isn't this true in your experience?

Also, what is hard is practicing _this whole gospel_ with a Christian combination of boldness and humility. So, really, the doctrine of election is hard on US, because it demands that we not soft-pedal the gospel's intrinsic offense in any way, and still be as personally inoffensive and unassuming as possible.

(And finally, as I said above, I'm a one-decree man myself--to me, infra and supra are only different ways of looking at the matter..)


----------



## Infralap

[/quote]

I agree.It`s just like the whole Calvinist belief.Maybe it is not good to walk up to someone and say God has chosen you.Feed the babes with milk before moving on with meat. [/quote]

I think that we both agree that we need to feed according to their position... i.e. if not born again, then they are not even babes, thus even milk might not be recomended. If babes in Christ! Then we need the stages just like the food we give our children (having 3 kids I feel like an expert, altough a good friend of mine has 12) first the milk, then the baby food in stages, etc... and Yes in a lifetime of a christian uis to grow into meats... but they are more than one, so is our focus not to let them choke like God did in the old Testament when He gave them meat to eat and they die in Zeal, afections. Because "A brother ofended is hard to win"


----------



## twogunfighter

Aaaack! Just when I was thinking that I was supra Fred comes off the top rope! Now I am just confused


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> Infra definitely, not just because of what has been mentioned as far as God's justice, but because of covenant. The Edenic Covenant has a certain advantage point inherent in it. It's Paradise. The New Heavens and Earth are Paradise Restored. The Edenic Covenant is a Blueprint for dominion. Before the fall, God had a plan laid in this covenant. Yes, God knew Adam would fall, but this Covenant is there for a reason. Infralapsarianism is implied in the creation order.


That covenant was made in that manner so that Christ could fulfill all righteousness for us where Adam failed to do so.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Infralap_
> Are there any advantges to sharing the gospel from a Supra position? Could being a Supra robbed you of the Love of God and diminish the atonement of Christ? ...
> 
> This are some of the questions that come into my mind of why I am not a Supra...
> 
> Yours in Christ
> Infralap


Being Supra never stopped Rutherford, Bunyan, Twisse, or Love from sharing the gospel.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Infralap_
> Are there any advantges to sharing the gospel from a Supra position? Could being a Supra robbed you of the Love of God and diminish the atonement of Christ? ...
> 
> This are some of the questions that come into my mind of why I am not a Supra...
> 
> Yours in Christ
> Infralap
> 
> 
> 
> Being Supra never stopped Rutherford, Bunyan, Twisse, or Love from sharing the gospel.
Click to expand...


Yes, and that blessed inconsistency (which happily describes most supralapsarians) is what makes this issue not so important.


----------



## bigheavyq

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> Infra definitely, not just because of what has been mentioned as far as God's justice, but because of covenant. The Edenic Covenant has a certain advantage point inherent in it. It's Paradise. The New Heavens and Earth are Paradise Restored. The Edenic Covenant is a Blueprint for dominion. Before the fall, God had a plan laid in this covenant. Yes, God knew Adam would fall, but this Covenant is there for a reason. Infralapsarianism is implied in the creation order.
> 
> 
> 
> That covenant was made in that manner so that Christ could fulfill all righteousness for us where Adam failed to do so.
Click to expand...


I understand and agree with federal theology here. However in looking at the edenic covenant their is much more to glean here and because of that infralapsarianism much be the case


----------



## fredtgreco

Huh?


----------



## bigheavyq

fred what are you confused about?


----------



## RickyReformed

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> Being Supra never stopped Rutherford, Bunyan, Twisse, or Love from sharing the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and that blessed inconsistency (which happily describes most supralapsarians) is what makes this issue not so important.
Click to expand...


Fred, I'm not sure why you believe they were being inconsistent. Could you explain? Thanks! Oh, and PuritanSailor forgot to add Beza, Gomarus, Perkins, Voetus, and Witsius.


----------



## RickyReformed

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It is my contention that the Confession is implicitly infra. (By the way, that is Derek Thomas' position as well)



This is true:

(quote from http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/salvatio.htm)
*This whole issue was hotly debated throughout the Westminster Assembly. William Twisse, an ardent supralapsarian and chairman of the Assembly, ably defended his view. But the Assembly opted for language that clearly favors the infra position, yet without condemning supralapsarianism.*

[Edited on 13-12-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## fredtgreco

Thanks for the link Ricky. I agree with the author's take on Reymond as well.


----------



## RickyReformed

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Thanks for the link Ricky. I agree with the author's take on Reymond as well.



Your welcome! The author is Phillip R. Johnson (the _other_ Phillip Johnson, as the author refers to himself.)

[Edited on 13-12-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## RickyReformed

Fred, I hate to resurrect an old topic, but I was hoping you would explain why being a "consistent" supra would prevent someone from sharing the gospel.

For what it's worth, If someone wants to say that Reymond's modified supralapsarianism is inherently infralapsarian (see Phil Johnson's comment in the link that Fred is referring to), I don't have a problem with that.

My objection is more properly directed at those who insist that God's decree of reprobation is passive, rather than active.


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> This may be of help:
> 
> Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition: Supra- and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, & Westminster
> By John V. Fesko




From another one of my posts:
I would appreciate some opinion on J.V. Fesko's "Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition". Is it historically accurate as to who held what views? Are there any points in it that need to be corrected?
I ask because his statement that Calvin was supra contradicts what I have read elsewhere. I have read somewhere that Turretin defended Calvin as implicitly infra, and Phil Johnson says the debate was not in Calvin's time. What is the truth about Calvin on this? What view did he hold, implicitly or explicitly? And I am confused as to how one can hold to "single" predestination and still be infra- as he states Augustine does. I thought double predestination was an inherently reformed aspect of supra and infra.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Just re-read this thread. Fred convinced me thus far. I'm now an infra.


----------



## Arch2k

I am a "modified" supralapsarian. I believe it takes care of all of the charges the infralapsarians pose to the traditional "supra" AND is the only position based upon logical reasoning.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I am a "modified" supralapsarian. I believe it takes care of all of the charges the infralapsarians pose to the traditional "supra" AND is the only position based upon logical reasoning.



Modified in what way?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Supralapsarian at the moment, although that might change after I finish Turretin's _Institutes_, as I think he is Infra.


----------



## Arch2k

Robert Reymond has a "modified" supralapsarian view (also developed by Gordon Clark and others. A detailed explanation can be found in his systematic theology. It works like this, God has then end result in mind (his goal) and works this goal out by means. The means are carried out in reverse order that they happen in time. This makes the order of decrees look like this:

1: The election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God gracious mercy to the elect)
2: The Decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners
3: The decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ
4: The decree that men should fall
5: The decree to create the world and men.

This view still places the decree of election before the fall, but also allows God to view men as _fallen_ in election and reprobation.

The reason I say it is the only _logical _ view, is that it works in a logical fashion. It starts off with the end result in mind first. For example, if you woke up one morning and decided to buy a car. The LOGICAL thing to do, is to think of the perfect car for you, and then work through the means of obtaining such a car, but the means will be in reverse order that you actually go about executing them as exemplified below:

1) I would like a black BMW 5-series; BUT in order to get the car I need to:
2) pay the $40g's to a car-dealership; BUT in order to get the $40g's I need to:
3) go to the bank; BUT in order to go to the bank I need to;
4) get dressed; BUT in order to get dressed I need to;
5) get out of bed

This works out a PLAN in a logical DEDUCTIVE format. We know God is a logical God, and therfore his plan is perfectly logical. He doesn't think in trial and error like we often do. He deduces!


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Robert Reymond has a "modified" supralapsarian view (also developed by Gordon Clark and others. A detailed explanation can be found in his systematic theology. It works like this, God has then end result in mind (his goal) and works this goal out by means. The means are carried out in reverse order that they happen in time. This makes the order of decrees look like this:
> 
> 1: The election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God gracious mercy to the elect)
> 2: The Decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners
> 3: The decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ
> 4: The decree that men should fall
> 5: The decree to create the world and men.
> 
> This view still places the decree of election before the fall, but also allows God to view men as _fallen_ in election and reprobation.



Forgive me, but this makes no logical sense to me. How can one be supra and begin with the election of sinful men? Men cannot logically be sinful without the Fall, therefore the decree to permit the Fall must precede the decree to elect sinful men.

So this is not a supralapsarian scheme. It is infra. Reymond can pretend that it is supra if it makes him feel better, but that doesn't make it true.

Welcome to the infra camp, Jeff.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> This view still places the decree of election before the fall, but also allows God to view men as _fallen_ in election and reprobation.



Regarding the first part of that statement, just what exactly is this "fall" seen as doing to man? Regarding the second part, just how exactly did these men become decreed as "fallen"?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Forgive me, but this makes no logical sense to me. How can one be supra and begin with the election of sinful men? Men cannot logically be sinful without the Fall, therefore the decree to permit the Fall must precede the decree to elect sinful men.


Strictly speaking, there is no logical problem with fashioning an initial view of the "plan" as envisioning sinful men, none whatsoever. God was not "obliged" to somehow conceive first of the idea of Man, ideally and in the abstract, and then follow that with the idea of him falling into sin, etc. As a man-made starting point (God's decree is ultimately one, whole and complete) Reymond's is perfectly legitimate, and it does solve some conundrums, even if it raises other questions.

One of those might be: Is it biblically permissible to say that God's eternal plan revolved around an atonement? If so, then there is no problem with an inital conception of rebels in need of redemption. The "reverse order" process then simply follows in order to accomplish the telos.

The infra position, however, seems to say no to the question, or at least to say that the "better" view is different. The older supra also seems not to admit this, but the newer one is unembarrassed to affirm it. The infra position, to my view, centers more on the final state (glorification) as the telos to which all the decrees orient. Then, our theology (Reformed) helps find to necessary order (over against Arminian, etc.).


----------



## fredtgreco

Bruce,

The question is: how can you view a result of the Fall apart from the Fall? Man cannot be considered as sinful without irst considering sin.

It is as if I asked you to consider men in relation to fdnkjmdictferjo, and then never considered fdnkjmdictferjo. It makes no sense.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Robert Reymond has a "modified" supralapsarian view (also developed by Gordon Clark and others. A detailed explanation can be found in his systematic theology. It works like this, God has then end result in mind (his goal) and works this goal out by means. The means are carried out in reverse order that they happen in time. This makes the order of decrees look like this:
> 
> 1: The election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God gracious mercy to the elect)
> 2: The Decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners
> 3: The decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ
> 4: The decree that men should fall
> 5: The decree to create the world and men.
> 
> This view still places the decree of election before the fall, but also allows God to view men as _fallen_ in election and reprobation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me, but this makes no logical sense to me. How can one be supra and begin with the election of sinful men? Men cannot logically be sinful without the Fall, therefore the decree to permit the Fall must precede the decree to elect sinful men.
> 
> So this is not a supralapsarian scheme. It is infra. Reymond can pretend that it is supra if it makes him feel better, but that doesn't make it true.
> 
> Welcome to the infra camp, Jeff.
Click to expand...


Fred,

In God's mind, the end result is the first in the order of decrees. It is just as easy for God to view this end (election of SINFUL men to salvation) as it is for us to think of an end (the purchase of a black BMW with brown leather interior that I have paid $40 for) and then work through the means to obtain that end. This is crucial to the understanding of this system. 

I admit that this system compares to the infra scheme in that it views men as sinful in election, but essentially, it is supra in that it places the decree of election(the end) before the decree of the fall(the means).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Fred,
What if instead of replacing "sin" in the above with "fdnkjmdictferjo," I replace "fdnkjmdictferjo" with "righteousness" (as a property of some being other than God, who _is_ righteousness)? It seems to me the same objection can be raised against any view of beings having properties. Why is it any easier to consider them in the abstract as positively righteous?

Back to you...


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Bruce,
> 
> The question is: how can you view a result of the Fall apart from the Fall? Man cannot be considered as sinful without irst considering sin.
> 
> It is as if I asked you to consider men in relation to fdnkjmdictferjo, and then never considered fdnkjmdictferjo. It makes no sense.



Considering is different from decreeing. We often take considerations into account without "decreeing" that they actually should happen. Our considerations can be wrong, and result in trial and error. God's considerations are perfect, and result in a perfect, logical decree.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Fred,
> What if instead of replacing "sin" in the above with "fdnkjmdictferjo," I replace "fdnkjmdictferjo" with "righteousness" (as a property of some being other than God, who _is_ righteousness)? It seems to me the same objection can be raised against any view of beings having properties. Why is it any easier to consider them in the abstract as positively righteous?
> 
> Back to you...



Bruce,

Your point is distinct from mine, because you can never consider righteousness _apart from God, Who is righteousness_. All true righteousness is derivitive of God's. That means that I have no problem contemplating righteousness as a quality of man prior even to his existence (i.e. the decree to create) or lack of righteousness (i.e. the decree to permit the Fall).

With sin, we have a different matter. Sin is not a substance, as you know well. (For others, that was the key to Augustine's theology) Sin only exists as a result of and a part of the Fall. In fact, while we will never know a world without righteousness, we _will_ know a world without sin - in glory.

Note well that I am not dealing with supralapsarianism _per se_ (which I think is defensible), but rather Reymond's view. What Reymond has done here is similar to what Frame does with the RPW -- he redefines it in a fashion that is logically self-inconsistent. He wants infralapsarianism but still wants to say it is supralapsarianism. It is slight of hand.

Back at you...


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Bruce,
> 
> The question is: how can you view a result of the Fall apart from the Fall? Man cannot be considered as sinful without irst considering sin.
> 
> It is as if I asked you to consider men in relation to fdnkjmdictferjo, and then never considered fdnkjmdictferjo. It makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering is different from decreeing. We often take considerations into account without "decreeing" that they actually should happen. Our considerations can be wrong, and result in trial and error. God's considerations are perfect, and result in a perfect, logical decree.
Click to expand...


The point is that a logical consideration of the salvation of *sinful* men must presuppose sin. Perfect consideration does not allow for illogic.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Bruce,
> 
> The question is: how can you view a result of the Fall apart from the Fall? Man cannot be considered as sinful without irst considering sin.
> 
> It is as if I asked you to consider men in relation to fdnkjmdictferjo, and then never considered fdnkjmdictferjo. It makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering is different from decreeing. We often take considerations into account without "decreeing" that they actually should happen. Our considerations can be wrong, and result in trial and error. God's considerations are perfect, and result in a perfect, logical decree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that a logical consideration of the salvation of *sinful* men must presuppose sin. Perfect consideration does not allow for illogic.
Click to expand...


I agree that it must presuppose the idea of sin. However, it also presupposes the idea of creation, mankind, Christ's atonement, the fact that God himself can think etc. etc. It presupposes the whole ball of wax.

The whole idea is, is that when a logical being plans something, he has the end in mind first, perfect and laid out before him, exactly as he wants it to be in the end. Then he goes about decreeing the means. 

I think that some confusion is over the fact that some look at the decrees as in time, or relating somewhat to chronology. This is not the case with God. We must remove all idea of time from the order of decrees and look at them ONLY in the light of logic. The argument that the first decree in Reymond's system is invalid because it presupposes the decree of sin, and therefore the decree of sin must preceed this first decree. But this is looking at it from a chronological point of view, not a logical.

I would recommend reading Reymond's treatment. I believe it is fair, and he does a better job than myself in explaining it!


----------



## The Lamb

Consider also the necessity of the fall. What righteousness was available through Adam for the elect? If we say there was righteousness available, then the infra must concede that had Adam not fallen, that same righteousness would have been imputed to the reprobate. So, either the fall was necessary to distinguish the antithesis between elect and reprobate (thus supralapsarianism) or the fall was necessary because the righteousness of Adam was insufficient for full glorification of the elect (again, thus supralapsarian).

Next topic!!!!!! :bigsmile:


----------



## JOwen

Infra here 

Mostly cause Jesus was.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Can God "conceive" of something not actually in existence? This must be true; its undeniable. God conceived everything in eternity past, before anything was but himself. So could God conceive the idea of saving unworthy beings (rebels) as a means of glorifying himself? Could this idea be a "starting point"? If not, why not? I need to know the biblical reason why this _cannot_ be the case.

Logically, again, I fail to see how the notion of a "rebel" necessitates the prior "conception" of a state of perfection. This is a fact: *God could have created rebels instantaneously; he could have brought them into existence that way.* The fact that he did something else is simply further demonstration of his wisdom, power, and glory. 


To all interested (I feel the repeated need to state this), I am not heartily arguing for or against any one of the three views--infra, supra, or the "in-between" supra-modified. To my mind, each one is an example of the human mind, using Reformed theology, attempting to understand and conceive of the mind of God at the limits of our penetration. The inevitable results fall short of an exhaustive or full comprehension; each method "breaks down" and fails somehow, being incapable of answering all the other's objections. I set these views over against (for example) Arminian views of the same issues, because Reformed theology as a system is incompatible with views that make the decree of election contingent on the decree to apply the Atonement. We reject such views because they cannot make any sense at all of God's ways, and they do disservice to them.


----------



## Romans922

What is meant by the 'DECREE'? Is this the actually action?


----------



## Rich Barcellos

Muller says that infralapsarianism "œis the confessional position of the Reformed churches "¦" Muller, Dictionary, 292. See also Shedd, Calvinism, 88.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> What is meant by the 'DECREE'? Is this the actually action?



"Decree" is not the action itself. 

Noah Webster defines:




> DECREE, n. [L. To judge; to divide.]
> 
> 1. Judicial decision, or determination of a litigated cause; as a decree of the court of chancery. The decision of a court of equity is called a decree; that of a court of law, a judgment.
> 
> 2. In the civil law, a determination or judgment of the emperor on a suit between parties.
> 
> 3. An edict or law made by a council for regulating any business within their jurisdiction; as the decrees of ecclesiastical councils.
> 
> 4. In general, an order, edict or law made by a superior as a rule to govern inferiors.
> 
> There went a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. Luke 2.
> 
> 5. Established law, or rule.
> 
> He made a decree for the rain. Job 28.
> 
> 6. *In theology, predetermined purpose of God; the purpose or determination of an immutable Being, whose plan of operations is, like himself, unchangeable.*
> DECREE, v.t.
> 
> 1. To determine judicially; to resolve by sentence; as, the court decreed that the property should be restored; or they decreed a restoration of the property.
> 
> 2. To determine or resolve legislatively; to fix or appoint; to set or constitute by edict or in purpose.
> 
> Thou shalt decree a thing, and it shall be established. Job 22.
> 
> Let us not be solicitous to know what God has decreed concerning us.



Also WCF



> Chapter 3:
> Of God´s Eternal Decree
> 3:1 God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Rom_9:15, Rom_9:18; Rom_11:33; Eph_1:11; Heb_6:17): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (Jam_1:13, Jam_1:17; 1Jo_1:5), nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Pro_16:33; Mat_17:12; Joh_19:11; Act_2:23; Act_4:27, Act_4:28).
> 3:2 Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions (Mat_11:21, Mat_11:23; Act_15:18; 1Sa_23:11, 1Sa_23:12), yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions (Rom_9:11, Rom_9:13, Rom_9:16, Rom_9:18).
> 3:3 By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels (Mat_25:41; 1Ti_5:21) are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death (Pro_16:4; Rom_9:22, Rom_9:23; Eph_1:5, Eph_1:6).
> 3:4 These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished (Joh_13:18; 2Ti_2:19).
> 3:5 Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory (Rom_8:30; Eph_1:4, Eph_1:9, Eph_1:11; 1Th_5:9; 2Ti_1:9), out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto (Rom_9:11, Rom_9:13, Rom_9:16; Eph_1:4, Eph_1:9): and all to the praise of His glorious grace (Eph_1:6, Eph_1:12).
> 3:6 As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto (Eph_1:4, Eph_1:5; Eph_2:10; 2Th_2:13; 1Pe_1:2). Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ (1Th_5:9, 1Th_5:10; Tit_2:14), are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified (Rom_8:30; Eph_1:5; 2Th_2:13), and kept by His power through faith unto salvation (1Pe_1:5). Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only (Joh_6:64, Joh_6:65; Joh_8:47; Joh_10:26; Joh_17:9; Rom_8:28-39; 1Jo_2:19).
> 3:7 The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice (Mat_11:25, Mat_11:26; Rom_9:17, Rom_9:18, Rom_9:21, Rom_9:22; 2Ti_2:19, 2Ti_2:20; 1Pe_2:8; Jud_1:4).
> 3:8 The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care (Deu_29:29; Rom_9:20; Rom_11:33), that men attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election (2Pe_1:10). So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God (Rom_11:33; Eph_1:6), and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel (Luk_10:20; Rom_8:33; Rom_11:5, Rom_11:6, Rom_11:20; 2Pe_1:10).


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> Muller says that infralapsarianism "œis the confessional position of the Reformed churches "¦" Muller, Dictionary, 292. See also Shedd, Calvinism, 88.



I would disagree with Muller. The Canons of Dort and the Westminster Assembly were divided over the issue. Francis Gomarus at Dort, was the most well known supra at Dort. Twisse, Rutherford, and Goodwin at Westminster.

To name a few other well-known supralapsarians: Theodore Beza, Jerome Zanchius, William Perkins, Voetus, Herman Witsius, Gerhardus Vos, Herman Hoeksema, Gordon Clark, and Robert Reymond.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> To name a few other well-known supralapsarians: Theodore Beza, Jerome Zanchius, William Perkins, Voetus, Herman Witsius, Gerhardus Vos, Herman Hoeksema, Gordon Clark, and Robert Reymond.



That's a pretty stout list.


----------



## Arch2k

To be fair, the infra side is even longer!


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> What is meant by the 'DECREE'? Is this the actually action?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Decree" is not the action itself.
> 
> Noah Webster defines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DECREE, n. [L. To judge; to divide.]
> 
> 1. Judicial decision, or determination of a litigated cause; as a decree of the court of chancery. The decision of a court of equity is called a decree; that of a court of law, a judgment.
> 
> 2. In the civil law, a determination or judgment of the emperor on a suit between parties.
> 
> 3. An edict or law made by a council for regulating any business within their jurisdiction; as the decrees of ecclesiastical councils.
> 
> 4. In general, an order, edict or law made by a superior as a rule to govern inferiors.
> 
> There went a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. Luke 2.
> 
> 5. Established law, or rule.
> 
> He made a decree for the rain. Job 28.
> 
> 6. *In theology, predetermined purpose of God; the purpose or determination of an immutable Being, whose plan of operations is, like himself, unchangeable.*
> DECREE, v.t.
> 
> 1. To determine judicially; to resolve by sentence; as, the court decreed that the property should be restored; or they decreed a restoration of the property.
> 
> 2. To determine or resolve legislatively; to fix or appoint; to set or constitute by edict or in purpose.
> 
> Thou shalt decree a thing, and it shall be established. Job 22.
> 
> Let us not be solicitous to know what God has decreed concerning us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also WCF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 3:
> Of God´s Eternal Decree
> 3:1 God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Rom_9:15, Rom_9:18; Rom_11:33; Eph_1:11; Heb_6:17): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (Jam_1:13, Jam_1:17; 1Jo_1:5), nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Pro_16:33; Mat_17:12; Joh_19:11; Act_2:23; Act_4:27, Act_4:28).
> 3:2 Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions (Mat_11:21, Mat_11:23; Act_15:18; 1Sa_23:11, 1Sa_23:12), yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions (Rom_9:11, Rom_9:13, Rom_9:16, Rom_9:18).
> 3:3 By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels (Mat_25:41; 1Ti_5:21) are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death (Pro_16:4; Rom_9:22, Rom_9:23; Eph_1:5, Eph_1:6).
> 3:4 These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished (Joh_13:18; 2Ti_2:19).
> 3:5 Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory (Rom_8:30; Eph_1:4, Eph_1:9, Eph_1:11; 1Th_5:9; 2Ti_1:9), out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto (Rom_9:11, Rom_9:13, Rom_9:16; Eph_1:4, Eph_1:9): and all to the praise of His glorious grace (Eph_1:6, Eph_1:12).
> 3:6 As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto (Eph_1:4, Eph_1:5; Eph_2:10; 2Th_2:13; 1Pe_1:2). Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ (1Th_5:9, 1Th_5:10; Tit_2:14), are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified (Rom_8:30; Eph_1:5; 2Th_2:13), and kept by His power through faith unto salvation (1Pe_1:5). Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only (Joh_6:64, Joh_6:65; Joh_8:47; Joh_10:26; Joh_17:9; Rom_8:28-39; 1Jo_2:19).
> 3:7 The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice (Mat_11:25, Mat_11:26; Rom_9:17, Rom_9:18, Rom_9:21, Rom_9:22; 2Ti_2:19, 2Ti_2:20; 1Pe_2:8; Jud_1:4).
> 3:8 The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care (Deu_29:29; Rom_9:20; Rom_11:33), that men attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election (2Pe_1:10). So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God (Rom_11:33; Eph_1:6), and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel (Luk_10:20; Rom_8:33; Rom_11:5, Rom_11:6, Rom_11:20; 2Pe_1:10).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So it isn't His actual action, and it isn't in time (obviously)
So why is there an order of decrees on both sides? Is His decrees more like God saying, "I am going to do this!, I am going to do THIS! I am going to do this!"?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> So why is there an order of decrees on both sides? Is His decrees more like God saying, "I am going to do this!, I am going to do THIS! I am going to do this!"?



Andrew,

The order of the decrees is more of a question of:

1) How does a logical being think?
2) What is the PLAN of God?

God does not plan in a disorganized fashion, or randomly. He PLANS!

When you, a logical being (at least sometimes  ) plan something, in what order to you plan it?

As I said in a previous post:


> The reason I say it is the only logical view, is that it works in a logical fashion. It starts off with the end result in mind first. For example, if you woke up one morning and decided to buy a car. The LOGICAL thing to do, is to think of the perfect car for you, and then work through the means of obtaining such a car, but the means will be in reverse order that you actually go about executing them as exemplified below:
> 
> 1) I would like a black BMW 5-series; BUT in order to get the car I need to:
> 2) pay the $40g's to a car-dealership; BUT in order to get the $40g's I need to:
> 3) go to the bank; BUT in order to go to the bank I need to;
> 4) get dressed; BUT in order to get dressed I need to;
> 5) get out of bed
> 
> This works out a PLAN in a logical DEDUCTIVE format. We know God is a logical God, and therfore his plan is perfectly logical. He doesn't think in trial and error like we often do. He deduces!


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> So why is there an order of decrees on both sides? Is His decrees more like God saying, "I am going to do this!, I am going to do THIS! I am going to do this!"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> The order of the decrees is more of a question of:
> 
> 1) How does a logical being think?
> 2) What is the PLAN of God?
> 
> God does not plan in a disorganized fashion, or randomly. He PLANS!
> 
> When you, a logical being (at least sometimes  ) plan something, in what order to you plan it?
> 
> As I said in a previous post:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I say it is the only logical view, is that it works in a logical fashion. It starts off with the end result in mind first. For example, if you woke up one morning and decided to buy a car. The LOGICAL thing to do, is to think of the perfect car for you, and then work through the means of obtaining such a car, but the means will be in reverse order that you actually go about executing them as exemplified below:
> 
> 1) I would like a black BMW 5-series; BUT in order to get the car I need to:
> 2) pay the $40g's to a car-dealership; BUT in order to get the $40g's I need to:
> 3) go to the bank; BUT in order to go to the bank I need to;
> 4) get dressed; BUT in order to get dressed I need to;
> 5) get out of bed
> 
> This works out a PLAN in a logical DEDUCTIVE format. We know God is a logical God, and therfore his plan is perfectly logical. He doesn't think in trial and error like we often do. He deduces!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So this has to do with, What order God 'THOUGHT' (in a sense) of what He was going to do, to glorify Himself, in eternity past?


----------



## Arch2k

Exactly!


----------



## Romans922

So how exactly can we know that? Does God actually address such things clearly?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> So how exactly can we know that? Does God actually address such things clearly?



Clearly? Probably not, but I do think that we can know from a view of the totality of scripture, and how a logical person (or 3 persons in one) thinks. Many men have taken dogmatic stances on this, and there is lots of reasoning on both sides. I would recommend taking up a few systematics and listening to the greats. Berkhof has a balanced section in his volume. Of course I would recommend Reymond and Hoeksema on this issue!


----------



## Arch2k

If you've got some time and extra money, I hear that Twisse's _The Riches of God´s Love unto the Vessells of Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessells of Wrath_ is a good read, although I disagree with this BRAND of supralapsarianism. It is available HERE. P.S. If you get it and read it, let me know how it is! 

Online, a few good articles to read are:

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE 

and 

http://web.archive.org/web/20030604160832/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ217.HTM


----------



## Myshkin

Romans 922-

If you are interested, BB Warfield wrote a short book on this called "The Plan of Salvation". Warfield took the infra position.


----------

