# God and Evil-Supra/Infra Implications



## charliejunfan (Feb 26, 2009)

I had recently been thinking about God and Evil as well as the implications of Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, I think I would be considered Infralapsarian in my view of God and Evil/providence and sanctification(correct me if I am wrong).

My view so far is that God created evil by retraction rather than action, I will use the angels as an example. With the angels I believe that God was holding them in a state of holiness, when God wanted Satan to fall He retracted that holiness to result in Satan's emnity toward God causing his fall. With the world I believe God has a restraint on the evil that people can do, so for the non christian if that person desires to sin, God has to retract his hold on that capability thus allowing that person to sin. People have different sins they struggle with, I think every single person has the capability and desire to some degree of every single sin, God allows men to do the sins that ultimately aid to His plan of Redemption and glory. As it says in the Bible(I'll try and add the verse soon) God gives people over to their sin resulting in more sin, I think that would presuppose that God has a restraint on the capasity for each persons sins. For the Christian in Sanctification I think it would be the same as the non Christian only that the Christian was given faith, the Christian actually wants to do good works for God's glory by the grace of the Holy Spirit working in them. 

There may be gaps in my logic somewhere, so please help me to fill them in 

PS. some of you have seen a post just like this by me before, but that one I stopped because of poor structure and lack of thinking


----------



## Confessor (Feb 26, 2009)

I agree with the concept of God's retraction. Just as God hardened Pharaoh's heart by allowing Pharaoh's moral state to decline, so also He could have simply "let go" of the goodness of Lucifer and allowed Him to rebel.

However, I do not see how this implies an infralapsarian position. God still has the display of His own glory, and therefore election and reprobation, as the logical ends of creating the world, and therefore they would be the first decrees. If you've ever seen Gordon Clark's supralapsarianism, you'll see what I mean. The main thing to remember is that, in every course of actions that exists, the logical end is always the first decree and the last thing accomplished. For instance, if I decide to go take a shower, I "decree" to take a shower, then I decree to get my clothing and toiletry for it. When I carry this out, I get my clothing and toiletries first then I go take a shower. It's basically a backwards process, yet it's always present in reasoning.

In other words,, it makes no sense for us to say that the purpose of creation is God's display of His glory and not have that be the first logical decree of His. Supralapsarianism is logically unavoidable, lest we believe that God acts without any purpose.


----------



## larryjf (Feb 26, 2009)

God does give people over to their sins and He also hardens their heart.

I'm not sure if i'm liking the "retraction" thing. If God loosens His grip on a person that seems to imply He gives up His control over that person. So i think we should be careful in how we formulate these ideas.

Certainly God withholds His presence from people, but it's in the sense of His gracious provisional presence. God is omnipresent, so His presence is everywhere...upon those who it is said to be withdrawn from it could also be seen as His good pleasure being withdrawn from them while His wrath rests upon them.

God ordains evil through secondary causes.
Satan fell of his own choice, yet did so by God's decree.
Man fell of his own choice, with the added pushing of a tempter, yet did so by God's decree.

I see God as actively ordering these things through secondary causes rather than retracting Himself.

Does that make any sense, or has my headache affected my ability to post?


----------



## charliejunfan (Feb 26, 2009)

I do believe that Supralapsarianism is right as far as logical order of decree, however I think that retraction of good to bring about evil would be an implication of Infralapsarianism, I have no problem being Supra in decree but Infra in implication of evil since God thinks "outside" of time and thinks absolutely perfectly. Maybe I have not thought deep enough.....


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Feb 26, 2009)




----------



## DonP (Feb 26, 2009)

i think you are trying to get into the mind of God in an area we are not to and we have not the ability to. You are thinking on things too high. 

What we need to be clear on are the doctrines, of predestination before the foundations of the earth. 

How exactly God di all of this not in our concept of space and time, and how He did it without being the author of sin, or being evil we can't comprehend. We just accept by faith all that God does is good and He can do things as King that are right and good that we mortals can't, like boast. 

So what seems to be consistent with our human fallen finite logic, supralaspsarian would cause som eto see God as creating evil or at least that God created the possibility for evil, if you are a philosopher. 

So we only need to know that sublaspsarian and weaker views of the order of decrees are not scriptural. We do not need to tread on becoming hypercalvinistic and satisfying our logic with When and in what order and motive God did what He did. 
Ps 131:1 Neither do I concern myself with great matters, Nor with things too profound for me. NKJV

Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do **all the words of this law. NKJV

But it is a fascinating waste of time and our mind that keeps us from helping others hear the gospel and Manifesting the glory of God to the world!! I wasted a lot on it too over the years. I have now repented and learned my lesson.

PS Not implying anything for anyone else, that was how God convicted me. 
In His Service,


----------



## Confessor (Feb 26, 2009)

charliejunfan said:


> I do believe that Supralapsarianism is right as far as logical order of decree, however I think that retraction of good to bring about evil would be an implication of Infralapsarianism, I have no problem being Supra in decree but Infra in implication of evil since God thinks "outside" of time and thinks absolutely perfectly. Maybe I have not thought deep enough.....



Can you flesh out exactly what you mean by "supralapsarian in decree and infralapsarian in implication"?


----------



## discipulo (Feb 26, 2009)

Confessor said:


> charliejunfan said:
> 
> 
> > I do believe that Supralapsarianism is right as far as logical order of decree, however I think that retraction of good to bring about evil would be an implication of Infralapsarianism, I have no problem being Supra in decree but Infra in implication of evil since God thinks "outside" of time and thinks absolutely perfectly. Maybe I have not thought deep enough.....
> ...



Some Theologians mention being Supra on the Cathedra and Infra on the Pulpit.

But I also can’t figure out how that works


----------



## charliejunfan (Feb 26, 2009)

To PeaceMaker-- Don't worry, this post is for the fun of it, we trust that God took care of it however He did, but I think that looking into the secret things would be more along the lines of guessing who is elect or not. A hyperCalvinist is one who doesn't believe in evangelism and so on (a Lazy Calvinist).

To Confessor and Discipulo-- I believe in Supra Decree, although I would sound like an Infralapsarian as far as talking about being passed over and that evil IS Free Will of man being restrained sometimes by the providence of God.....yeah.....something like that....


----------



## cih1355 (Feb 26, 2009)

charliejunfan said:


> I had recently been thinking about God and Evil as well as the implications of Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, I think I would be considered Infralapsarian in my view of God and Evil/providence and sanctification(correct me if I am wrong).
> 
> My view so far is that God created evil by retraction rather than action, I will use the angels as an example. With the angels I believe that God was holding them in a state of holiness, when God wanted Satan to fall He retracted that holiness to result in Satan's emnity toward God causing his fall. With the world I believe God has a restraint on the evil that people can do, so for the non christian if that person desires to sin, God has to retract his hold on that capability thus allowing that person to sin. People have different sins they struggle with, I think every single person has the capability and desire to some degree of every single sin, God allows men to do the sins that ultimately aid to His plan of Redemption and glory. As it says in the Bible(I'll try and add the verse soon) God gives people over to their sin resulting in more sin, I think that would presuppose that God has a restraint on the capasity for each persons sins. For the Christian in Sanctification I think it would be the same as the non Christian only that the Christian was given faith, the Christian actually wants to do good works for God's glory by the grace of the Holy Spirit working in them.
> 
> ...




I would add that God ordains that people would have the desire to sin. God not only allows people to sin, He ordains that people would have sinful desires in the first place. I don't know how God goes about ordaining that people would have sinful desires. I do know that God does not tempt people to sin. God does not force people to sin and God is not morally responsible for man's sin. God made a plan that man would have sinful desires and that man would act according to his desires. However, man is responsible for his sin, not God.


----------



## MW (Feb 26, 2009)

charliejunfan said:


> however I think that retraction of good to bring about evil would be an implication of Infralapsarianism,



I don't know of any supralapsarian, in the reformed tradition, who has taught that God brings about evil by positive action. It is always maintained that the "evil" of the action belongs to the creature who wills it.


----------



## charliejunfan (Feb 27, 2009)

To Curt--- Yes, I would agree that God ordained that men have evil thoughts, only I believe that each person struggles with different kinds of sins although every human has capacity for all sin, the favorable sins of each person are part of their God given personality and character for God's glory. I, like you(I think) think it is silly to say that God allowed rather than caused, Gordon Clark has an excelent quote regarding this, and that is, God can cause you to write a book, but YOU are still the author of it. In otherwords although God caused you to write that book, you were the one who actually wrote, God is the primary that accomplishes through the secondary. I believe in absolute determinism that I am sure of.


To Rev Winzer(Your posts help me often )----Well cool then, I guess I'm Supra then, I just like the word Infralapsarian more, and John Owen supposedly was one, so that affected how I saw things. I will continue to think and study this issue, because I'm sure it is far more complex than I see it  .


----------



## Roldan (Feb 27, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> charliejunfan said:
> 
> 
> > however I think that retraction of good to bring about evil would be an implication of Infralapsarianism,
> ...



Right, through secondary causes


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 27, 2009)

How are secondary causes divorced from God's sovereignty? Clark's famous (infamous?) quote about the man who goes out, gets drunk, and shoots his family as the clear will of God immediately comes to mind.


----------



## Confessor (Feb 27, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> How are secondary causes divorced from God's sovereignty? Clark's famous (infamous?) quote about the man who goes out, gets drunk, and shoots his family as the clear will of God immediately comes to mind.



God is sovereign over them, but by definition man is the one carrying the actions out and therefore morally responsible.

As I see it, God's decree passes through man's rational-moral "filter" to the secondary cause, and man thereby becomes responsible.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 28, 2009)

Perhaps it comes down to this: God wills righteously what men do wickedly.


----------



## DonP (Feb 28, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Perhaps it comes down to this: God wills righteously what men do wickedly.



Isn't that what the bible says? Simple

So why the debate on this subject? It is a simple done deal

God is sovereign. All things are from Him. But accomplished in a way He is always innocent and it is Good.

Man never feels the effect of predestination and therefore can be held responsible and accountable for his choices, which as far as his experience are real choices. 

Man does not get the rights or liberties God has because he s the creature, not the creator

So it doesn't really matter if it is supra or infra anyway. As long as we agree that Go is sovereign and 1st mover. Some just want to force all scripture into the finite logic and consistency to man's mind. Doing so they err in other areas. It seems to me the Supra, though it appeals to my sense of logic too, would remove human responsibility, and in fact we find those who hold to supra, like the PRC to be hypercalvinistic and they don't evangelize outside the church and won't preach repentance and a need for conversion to their presumed regenerated cov children

Lets go share the gospel with some one who doesn't know the Lord. Or go help some people on another thread learn how to exegete scripture or live a more mature Christian life.


----------



## Prufrock (Feb 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> So it doesn't really matter if it is supra or infra anyway. As long as we agree that Go is sovereign and 1st mover. Some just want to force all scripture into the finite logic and consistency to man's mind. Doing so they err in other areas. It seems to me the Supra, though it appeals to my sense of logic too, would remove human responsibility, and in fact we find those who hold to supra, like the PRC to be hypercalvinistic and they don't evangelize outside the church and won't preach repentance and a need for conversion to their presumed regenerated cov children
> 
> Lets go share the gospel with some one who doesn't know the Lord. Or go help some people on another thread learn how to exegete scripture or live a more mature Christian life.



Peacemaker,

While I appreciate your zeal to see that the gospel is shared with those who don't know the Lord, I'm not quite sure this means we must drop all discussion of those dogmas which don't seem to have an immediate effect on "winning souls;" especially, when in saying it is an unnecessary conversation, you impugn with a single word those who hold one of the positions in question, as you said:


> It seems to me the Supra, though it appeals to my sense of logic too, would remove human responsibility, and in fact we find those who hold to supra, like the PRC to be hypercalvinistic and they don't evangelize outside the church and won't preach repentance and a need for conversion to their presumed regenerated cov children.


It seems you don't think the topic is superfluous, since you see dangerous trends in those who hold a supralapsarian position. 

Perhaps instead of calling it unnecessary while at the same time offering a practical critique of one of the positions, a fruitful discussion of the topic might prove beneficial if for nothing else than to clear up some of the misconceptions you have.

Also, as your signature notes you enjoy the literature of the Puritans, you might be interested in reading a work such as Thomas Goodwin's treatise on Election: a work wherein he discusses at length the logical scheme of the decree, and yet the greater part of the work is a wonderful meditation upon God's election. Therein you will find a wonderful harmonization of the technical end of the discussion and the homiletical fruits of such doctrine.

Grace and peace, brother.


----------



## Confessor (Feb 28, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Perhaps it comes down to this: God wills righteously what men do wickedly.



Absolutely, but that doesn't mean there are no questions to be answered, or that we have exhaustively explained the process and smoothed out all the bumps.

God is incomprehensible, after all.


----------



## DonP (Mar 1, 2009)

OK Paul you nailed me. I apologize. I did not mean to say anyone is wrong for wanting to discuss this. But mainly to make sure they avoid the errors of the PRC. Not to eventually understand which one is right and know what scripture has not revealed. 

Read Goodwin, he is one of my favorites, and many others, was a Supra for a long time, think the Confession is organized supra even though the doctrine stated is infra so there may have been some supralapsarians at WC, feel I wasted much more of my time and others on the subject. Now feel it can't be known for sure so we just avoid the errors of some who hold to supra and go on with more important issues. Just sharing my opinion in case it helps some use their time more wisely. 

You have every right to discuss this or any subject of theology you want.


----------

