# Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism: Practical Implications



## strangecharm (Aug 26, 2009)

As a relatively new Reformed believer, I have run across the terms infralapsarian and supralapsarian repeatedly. 

While I understand what they mean, in terms of theory, I do not understand their implications in practice.

What difference, if any, does one's position on this issue make in preaching, witnessing, discipleship, and general Christian practice?

I appreciate the help.


----------



## Michael Doyle (Aug 26, 2009)

Welcome to the board Stephen!


----------



## Herald (Aug 26, 2009)

I'll weigh in on this when I get home. This topic greatly interests me.


----------



## jason d (Aug 27, 2009)

Welcome & great question, I have been wondering the same thing too.


----------



## Radical_Pilgrim (Aug 27, 2009)

Hey Stephen,
Glad you came brother. You'll find a wealth of knowledge here learning and growing with our fellow reformed saints. This discussion may shed some light, there is a chart there that may be helpful.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/high-calvinism-low-calvinism-33025/


----------



## Houchens (Aug 27, 2009)




----------



## strangecharm (Aug 27, 2009)

While this is a helpful thread in classifying myself, it doesn't help me with practical application. You and I both know that I'm lacking there. I would like these theoretical differences to produce perhaps difference in behavior.

I'm thinking that I'm a Low Calvinist (NOT Amyraldian, 4-point), but I'm not ashamed of that in any way. I'm definitely infralapsarian, and I cannot help but hold to common grace. (Have I been breathing in too much John Piper and Paul Washer?) 

Still, the question remains: what will that mean once I enter ministry, DV?


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 27, 2009)

Many Reformed theologians, including Bavinck (I think) and Morton Smith, think the whole controversy was kind of a mistake. To attempt to order the divine decrees logically is very close to assuming a discursive operation in the mind of God. Personally, I don't think there's any real merit to the issue, though some have said that the Westminster standards are a bit on the infralapsarian side, and I confess that I personally think that Supralapsarianism involves some logical contradiction.

I doubt it will ever make a whit of difference in your ministry.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 27, 2009)

I suspect that like creationism and traducianism, the practical impact of these doctrines is seen not directly, but in the way that they safeguard and inform your views of other doctrines.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Aug 27, 2009)

Welcome to the PB.

I think Supralapsarianism is they way to go for one reason. If God did not choose His Elect before the Creation then He was not acting in accordance to His infinite nature, meaning that while He was doing one thing, Creation, He was not or could not be looking ahead to the Fall. But I am willing to admit some pretty smart people see things on the other side. MY advice is don't get to bogged down with this debate when so much is clear about how Great God is.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 27, 2009)

While one can be a supra and not be a hyper-calvinist, those that are truly hyper-calvinists are always supralapsarians it seems.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Aug 27, 2009)

strangecharm said:


> I'm definitely infralapsarian, and I cannot help but hold to common grace. (Have I been breathing in too much John Piper and Paul Washer?)




Perhaps.

This is an interesting subject which deserves the study of both lapsarian concepts, as well as becoming familiar with the history of the controversy over whether God's grace is common to all, or not.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 27, 2009)

But I think that trying to order God's logical decrees (from all eternity) into consecutive order is difficult to say the least.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Aug 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> But I think that trying to order God's logical decrees (from all eternity) into consecutive order is difficult to say the least.



Perhaps.

But delving into a study of lapsarianism (as well as studying the controversy over Eternal Justification), if nothing else, will edify the believer concerning the doctrine of Unconditional Election.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Aug 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> While one can be a supra and not be a hyper-calvinist, those that are truly hyper-calvinists are always supralapsarians it seems.



I'm sorry but I don't remember if you ever gave a few names of any modern hyper-Calvinist. People who are teaching today that most Christians might have heard of and should beware of because of their teachings.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 27, 2009)

Spinningplates2 said:


> I think Supralapsarianism is they way to go for one reason. If God did not choose His Elect before the Creation then He was not acting in accordance to His infinite nature, meaning that while He was doing one thing, Creation, He was not or could not be looking ahead to the Fall.



But that's not what the lapsarian debate is about. The supra/infra distinction is whether, in the eternal decree, God first logically decided to elect or to create. It has nothing to do with how the decrees were exercised in time. All the decrees were in place before creation (hence, eternal).


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 27, 2009)

TeachingTulip said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > But I think that trying to order God's logical decrees (from all eternity) into consecutive order is difficult to say the least.
> ...



Yes, I guess you are quite right.

-----Added 8/27/2009 at 10:41:34 EST-----



Spinningplates2 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > While one can be a supra and not be a hyper-calvinist, those that are truly hyper-calvinists are always supralapsarians it seems.
> ...



Here's a description, if you want to read the characteristics of Hyper-Calvinism and check yourself against it: A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Aug 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



This is what you sent last time. I guess there are no modern Hyper-Calvinist to beware of in the Reformed world today. At least any that have a following. But we should never forget that one man did say something stupid and unbiblical to William Carrey.


----------



## ExGentibus (Aug 28, 2009)

I think that the implications of one's view on the infra/supra doctrines are not directly practical, but are visible in other doctrines. For instance the promise in the covenant of works: an infralapsarian would see the life promised to Adam as a kind of heavenly life to be somehow restored in the second Adam; a supra would probably see it as a earthly life. However, the question seems to me rather academic in nature, albeit sadly some contemporary teachers make it a matter of separation from other reformed churches.


----------



## Confessor (Aug 28, 2009)

py3ak said:


> I suspect that like creationism and traducianism, the practical impact of these doctrines is seen not directly, but in the way that they safeguard and inform your views of other doctrines.



I was wondering how it might have practical implications, and this post was spot-on, in my opinion. God has been sovereign from eternity, and God's glory has always been the ultimate end of every motion of His will.

I believe supralapsarianism is the way to go, for when singular actions are considered and subdivided into different aspects, the order in which the aspects are carried out is the exact opposite of the order in which they are conceived. Thought always involves a consideration of the ends logically prior to the means; otherwise the means would be just "out there" detached from any particular end, and actions would be performed without any purpose.

For instance, if I wish to get some Taco Bell for dinner, I first think of the end, gaining Taco Bell, and then I think of how this Taco Bell can be obtained -- I'll have to drive -- and then I realize that in order to drive, I need to get car keys. When this plan is executed, I first get the keys, then I drive to Taco Bell, then I get the food, the exact opposite of the conceived plan. Likewise, since the creation of man ultimately serves to glorify God's mercy and justice through salvation and damnation, it follows that God's self-glorification via election and reprobation are considered as an end of creation (i.e. creation is the means of them), and therefore they are logically prior to creation.

It could be argued that God does not think discursively, but intuitively, but this objection ultimately fails. We subdivide other aspects of God's thought. We can speak of God's decrees elsewhere as distinct propositions without implying that He thinks discursively. Why not in the lapsarian debate? Lapsarianism does not imply that God thinks in this order, but rather that his thought, _when expressed in a way that condescends to human minds_, can be accurately conceived in a specific order.


----------



## ewenlin (Aug 28, 2009)

I kind of agree with Ben that what was last in action must be first in thought.

Anyway, I didn't know Paul Washer was infra. I heard one of his sermons that sounded a little on the Supra side.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 28, 2009)

Confessor said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that like creationism and traducianism, the practical impact of these doctrines is seen not directly, but in the way that they safeguard and inform your views of other doctrines.
> ...



There is a logical problem in supralapsarianism, though. The distinctive feature of supra- is that you have the decree of election to salvation preceding the decree of creation. However, a being's existence logically precedes any other aspect about it, and the fall and sin logically precedes salvation. In other words, if we're putting this into the steps that a human mind can follow, we need creation before anything else, because we need to conceive of the party as existing before we assign any properties to it.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Aug 28, 2009)

B.B. Warfield discussed the infra/supra differences in his "Plan of Salvation". Perhaps some of the practical implications may be derived from his discussion -- I don't recall. However, he held to infralapsarianism and contended that it was the only view self consistent and consistent with the facts of Scripture (p. 28).


----------



## Confessor (Aug 28, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> There is a logical problem in supralapsarianism, though. The distinctive feature of supra- is that you have the decree of election to salvation preceding the decree of creation. However, a being's existence logically precedes any other aspect about it, and the fall and sin logically precedes salvation. In other words, if we're putting this into the steps that a human mind can follow, we need creation before anything else, because we need to conceive of the party as existing before we assign any properties to it.



I don't think this holds up. When we are conceiving of different characteristics of something, it is superfluous to include existence as an attribute of something that is conceived. (This is basically Kant's objection to Anselm's ontological argument.) It is impossible to conceive of men without conceiving of existing men -- by that I don't mean that the men in your mind exist in reality, but that in your thought they have the attribute of existence.

As a different answer to the objection, consider this order of thought:
(1) I want to glorify myself.
(2) I can glorify myself by showing forth my mercy and justice.
(3) I can show forth my mercy and justice by electing some men and reprobating some men.
(4) In order to elect some men and reprobate some men, I need to create them.

In (3), I would say that God is considering the election and reprobation of _existing_ men (because there's no way to imagine a man who possesses an attribute of nonexistence), and, because these men do not presently exist in reality, God decreed their creation as a means to their salvation and damnation.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 28, 2009)

Confessor said:


> As a different answer to the objection, consider this order of thought:
> (1) I want to glorify myself.
> (2) I can glorify myself by showing forth my mercy and justice.
> (3) I can show forth my mercy and justice by electing some men and reprobating some men.
> ...



But notice that the notion of "mercy" is unintelligible without _prior_ concepts of (1) relationship (2) justice and (3) sin. To speak of election, reprobation, mercy, or justice, both existence and the fall (lapse) must be concomitant or prior. It is impossible to conceive of salvation without a prior concept of need. Likewise, it is nonsensical to speak in relational categories without a relation being presupposed. If I told you I wanted to kerplank, which is when one person dimpers and another one frewits, you would not be able to conceive of kerplank until after you've conceived of dimpers and frewits. If either dimpers or frewits is unintelligible, so is kerplank.

When humans think teleologically, they do so based on past experience. "I want to go to Taco Bell" is only possible because I have had previous experience with Taco Bell. Had I never had that past experience, it would be necessary to introduce me to the concept before I could do anything further with it.


----------



## Confessor (Aug 28, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> But notice that the notion of "mercy" is unintelligible without _prior_ concepts of (1) relationship (2) justice and (3) sin. To speak of election, reprobation, mercy, or justice, both existence and the fall (lapse) must be concomitant or prior. It is impossible to conceive of salvation without a prior concept of need. Likewise, it is nonsensical to speak in relational categories without a relation being presupposed.



Lapsarianism doesn't involve when God first thinks of the concepts of mercy, relationship, justice, and sin, as if He knew nothing about them prior. If that were the case, then both lapsarianisms would be impossible.

In fact, the reasoning you give is precisely why supralapsarianism is correct, I believe. God recognizes that mercy requires prior concepts, and therefore when He considers mercy, He understands that other things must be decreed to bring about His mercy. Reprobation requires sin and justice, so after God decrees to reprobate some men, He later decrees that they sin and that He justly punish them for it.

The alternative to this is that God purposelessly thinks of existing men, or of sin, and then He realizes what He can do with this. But this is certainly false. God always acts with purpose.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Aug 28, 2009)

According to Thornwell, the question “is whether sin is in the Divine thought antecedent to condemnation, the real ground of it, or only a providential means of executing the decree of reprobation formed irrespective of it” (James Henley Thornwell, _Collected Writings_ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), II:21.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2009)

The practical implication for ministry (if consistently carried through) is, if you are supralapsarian, with the apostle Paul you can glorify God that the savour of Christ is spread through the preaching of the Word even when God makes it a savour of death to some. If you are infralapsarian, the savour of death will be accidental to the preaching of the Word since God is said to merely pass by the individuals who reject it. If you are Amyraldian, and believe God has a conditional will for the salvation of all men, then you will see the savour of death as no part of the influence of the Word of God and that God is not genuinely glorified in the damnation of sinners. In my humble opinion, the supralapsarian scheme is the only one which can make the preaching of the Word a true act of worship even when it is rejected by sinful men.


----------



## strangecharm (Aug 28, 2009)

I'm infralapsarian so far as I can tell. I don't quite understand what your issue is regarding preaching as worship. If you could explain in detail (in private message if need be), I would greatly appreciate it.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2009)

strangecharm said:


> I'm infralapsarian so far as I can tell. I don't quite understand what your issue is regarding preaching as worship. If you could explain in detail (in private message if need be), I would greatly appreciate it.



John Calvin's comments on 2 Cor. 2:15, 16, may be of help as you think through the practical implications of the issue:



> Here we have a remarkable passage, by which we are taught, that, whatever may be the issue of our preaching, it is, notwithstanding, well-pleasing to God, if the Gospel is preached, and our service will be acceptable to him; and also, that it does not detract in any degree from the dignity of the Gospel, that it does not do good to all; for God is glorified even in this, that the Gospel becomes an occasion of ruin to the wicked, nay, it must turn out so. If, however, this is a sweet odour to God, it ought to be so to us also, or in other words, it does not become us to be offended, if the preaching of the Gospel is not salutary to all; but on the contrary, let us reckon, that it is quite enough, if it advance the glory of God by bringing just condemnation upon the wicked. If, however, the heralds of the Gospel are in bad odour in the world, because their success does not in all respects come up to their desires, they have this choice consolation, that they waft to God the perfume of a sweet fragrance, and what is to the world an offensive smell, is a sweet odour to God and angels.



If one can preach with faith that God is glorified when the Gospel becomes an occasion of ruin to the wicked, and it is sweet to the preacher even when the Gospel brings condemnation on the wicked, he worships God as he should. How this could be consistent with infralapsarianism, which teaches that God simply passes by individual sinners, I know not.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 28, 2009)

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> [Emphasis added]
> 
> Chapter III
> ...



While acknowledging that God gets glory for both His mercy (those He graciously redeems) and His justice (those He gives justice to), the Confession uses the term "passes by."

Would we say the Confession leans "infra" or does the Confession state only the common truths of both "infra" and "supra," having been written at a time when those terms were not even used?


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> While acknowledging that God gets glory for both His mercy (those He graciously redeems) and His justice (those He gives justice to), the Confession uses the term "passes by."
> 
> Would we say the Confession leans "infra" or does the Confession state only the common truths of both "infra" and "supra," having been written at a time when those terms were not even used?



The Confession leans towards supralapsarianism but accommodates the infralapsarian view. We should note the following:

1. Sect. 2, "yet has He not decreed ... as that which would come to pass upon such conditions." All things are decreed unconditionally and come to pass because they are decreed unconditionally.

2. Sect. 3, "By the decree of God ... foreordained to everlasting death." However the word "foreordination" might remove the idea of equal ultimacy so far as means are concerned, it does not remove equal ultimacy as to the end being decreed.

3. Sect. 5, 6, deal specifically with the means of salvation. The elect are placed in Christ; the reprobate are "passed by" and are to be punished for their sins. Supralapsarians acknowledge preterition and damnation for sin so far as means are concerned.


----------



## steven-nemes (Aug 28, 2009)

It seems to me that Romans 11:32 teaches supralapsarianism: "For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 28, 2009)

py3ak said:


> I suspect that like creationism and traducianism, the practical impact of these doctrines is seen not directly, but in the way that they safeguard and inform your views of other doctrines.



R.L. Dabney in his _Systematic Theology_ believes that the controversy over Supra vs. Infra (along with Creationism vs. Traducianism) arises from an inward need of some Reformed theologians to seek to be _too_ precise with language in these areas and he finds the discussion to be missing the point.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> R.L. Dabney in his _Systematic Theology_ believes that the controversy over Supra vs. Infra (along with Creationism vs. Traducianism) arises from an inward need of some Reformed theologians to seek to be _too_ precise with language in these areas and he finds the discussion to be missing the point.



One should read Dabney's reviews of Hodge and Breckenridge to see what precision of language is and why it is so necessary in sytematic theology. When one reads Dabney's views on the doctrines of grace it is understandable why he would not like precision of language in this area. He abandoned the traditional voluntarist scheme and conceded so much to necessitarian thinking that only the skeleton of the old Calvinism remained.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 28, 2009)

Here's what is confusing.

Phillip R. Johnson at this site summarizes these views and their place in reformed theology historically:
Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism

He states the following about the historic creeds leaning "infra":



> All the major Reformed Creeds are either explicitly infralapsarian, or else they carefully avoid language that favors either view. No major creed takes the supra position. (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*.)



Isn't it accurate to say the Confession does not teach what is called "equal ultimacy" that is a symmetric decree for salvation for some, judgment for others. Rather it teaches pro-active intervention for salvation, but not for judgment... but still all the Glory of God's justice and mercy.

Isn't this asymmetrical means of decree, more infralapsarian and isn't that really what the Confession is summarizing?


----------



## Radical_Pilgrim (Aug 28, 2009)

This seems like a good topic for me a relatively new reformed believer as well to pine in on a question I have regarding this and a few other debates.

When do we know if we are reading or trying to read too much into the mind of God? When you start discussing the logic and trying to figure topics such as these, where is the line? 

Thanks!


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Phillip R. Johnson at this site summarizes these views and their place in reformed theology historically:
> 
> 
> 
> > *But the Assembly opted for language that clearly favors the infra position, yet without condemning supralapsarianism*.)



This is mere assertion. The first two points I noted earlier are distinctively supralapsarian; and the third point shows the agreement with, and accommodation of, infralapsarianism, in the means of the decree.



Scott1 said:


> Isn't this asymmetrical means of decree, more infralapsarian and isn't that really what the Confession is summarizing?



No, it is not an infralapsarian distinctive. Supralapsarians still have means of salvation and damnation; it is just that they place it lower in the order of decrees. If I embark on a train at a station prior to you, and we are going to the same destination, I am still on the train at the point at which you embark.


----------



## Reformed Rush (Aug 28, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> VII. *The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.*
> 
> 
> While acknowledging that God gets glory for both His mercy (those He graciously redeems) and His justice (those He gives justice to), the Confession uses the term "passes by."
> ...



The terms might not have been the same, but both views were represented amongst the Divines . . .but it was not a football game where one side bettered or out-scored the other, to establish a "winner."

I believe both Supra and Infra views were represented in the final product of the WCF.

However, please note my underlined emphasis above. The "passing by" was not God "passively" enduring reprobates, but rather, reprobation is still clearly declared to be the act of Godly _*ordination.*_


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 29, 2009)

Reformed Rush said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > VII. *The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.*
> ...



But the "infra" view doesn't say God is passive in allowing sinners to receive justice, does it?

It just says that God is pro-active in the sense of intervening to provide mercy (instead of justice) to some sinners, in a way He is not for those who are "passed by" to receive justice- still all according to the immutable counsel of the good pleasure of His will. Is that how you understand it?


----------



## JTB (Sep 9, 2009)

Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology has an excellent discussion of the various lapsarian views and a solid defense of teleological supralapsarianism (which has not been the majority of supra views amongst those in the Reformed tradition).

Gordon Clark addresses the logical and exegetical import of the debate in his commentary on Ephesians (3:9-10).

The verse states that God who created all things, SO THAT the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

Creation is a subordinate decree on the basis of its being purpose to allow God to demonstrate Himself through the Church.

Creation is a means by which God is able to reveal Himself through the Church. Creation is temporally prior because we must be created before we can reveal anything, but God's purpose to reveal Himself through the Church is logically prior to Creation, because Creation is a means, not an end (and logically, or better yet, teleologically, the end of the matter temporally is the beginning of the matter logically).

Thus, the logical order of the decrees must subordinate creation to God's more primary purpose, which is His election of those in the Church unto grace in Christ Jesus.

What is the practical import? Well, several things:

1. Teleological Supralapsarianism is more logically consistent, because in positing Creation first, infralapsarianism gives us an object for which there is no purpose outside itself. In order to be logically arranged, whatever comes first is the chief end, and we know that Creation is not God's most primary means for displaying His glory, but rather it is our election in Christ.

2. By having a logically sound and completely purpose driven explanation of the decrees, the supralapsarian view glorifies God's orderly mind and determinative will. The infralapsarian position places a mild counter-purpose in God's mind by having him plunge all into sin prior to his having decreed to elect any unto His favor. Thus God in one logical moment disfavors all, but in the next logical moment favors some. Temporally this seems no problem, but logically it presents a less favorable construction.

3. The supralapsarian can validly argue that God's chief end with respect to man was to elect some unto glory and condemns some unto reprobation without respect to their status. Infralapsarians have prior reasons why God is determining His glory--Creation is more prominent than election, and so too is our plunge into sin. Are those aspects of God's thought truly prior to His setting His love upon some and His hate upon others? We hear all about the redemptive-historical flow of Scripture as its kernel or key thread, but only the supralapsarian view provides solid logical ground for such a claim.

There may be other practical implications as well, but these are a few that come immediately to mind.


----------



## Confessor (Sep 10, 2009)

Joshua,

I agree with what you said in full.

Is there a specific name for non-teleological supralapsarianism?


----------



## charliejunfan (Sep 10, 2009)

How about we just think of God's reasoning as an infinite, eternal circle rather than a progressive, linear line and dodge the entire issue. 

Seriously though, if we look at God's decree as all things present at all times as opposed to trying to piece the puzzle together in linear logical order then I think it is both and neither, it is perfect.

Or I could just be crazy and illogical in which case....

I think that instead of looking at election as determining the proper order to result in God's glory we should look at God's unchanging character and attributes since His Holiness is responsible for His Desire (in my opinion). I think this would make justice a result of sin, justice a result of righteousness, and mercy a result of Christ righteousness making mercy just.---INFRALAPSARIANISM 
(I like the word INFRA better than SUPRA, I don't like the word SUPERMAN)

It is late and I think all of what I just wrote is probably illogical and crazy in which case you guys can pick it apart while I am refreshed by sleep and come back with a better argument.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 10, 2009)

Radical_Pilgrim said:


> This seems like a good topic for me a relatively new reformed believer as well to pine in on a question I have regarding this and a few other debates.
> 
> When do we know if we are reading or trying to read too much into the mind of God? When you start discussing the logic and trying to figure topics such as these, where is the line?
> 
> Thanks!



It's helpful to remember to focus on reading God's Word and asking the Holy Spirit to help illuminate your understanding.

While the discussion of "infra" and "supra" might be helpful, it's really not something to focus on. Many times understanding the concepts around them will help you understand the covenants of covenant theology:

Covenants of:

1) redemption
2) works
3) grace

(In the end, none are at all dependent on "infra" or "supra" so don't unduly focus on that).

When you are talking about eternality, trying to order things temporally really becomes an academic exercise. We don't want to lose focus on the more important issues of the attributes of our infinite, immutable God.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 10, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Many times understanding the concepts around them will help you understand the covenants of covenant theology:
> 
> Covenants of:
> 
> ...


Doesn't the WCF speak of only two covenants?

AMR


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 10, 2009)

> *Ask Mr. Religion*
> Doesn't the WCF speak of only two covenants?



Yes,

But there is an assumption of what is called a covenant of redemption among the Trinity in the background.

The covenant of redemption is the perfect agreement in eternity past among the members of the Godhead- the Father elects according to the good pleasure of His will, the Son comes and effectively atones for every one of them, the Holy Spirit effectually calls each one at the appointed time. 

While this covenant if often not explicitly stated, it is implicit in reformed theology.

_What is Reformed Theology?_ by Dr RC Sproul talks about this in its role in reformed theology and implicit underpinning of covenant theology. It also helps in differentiating a dispensational framework.


----------



## JTB (Sep 10, 2009)

Confessor said:


> Joshua,
> 
> I agree with what you said in full.
> 
> Is there a specific name for non-teleological supralapsarianism?



Reymond calls it "Supralapsarianism, historical principle" I believe. That view only changes the order of election, leaving the rest of the order as it is with infralapsarian. Teleological organizes creation as the last decree, as it is first in the temporal sequence.

-----Added 9/10/2009 at 11:48:17 EST-----



> I think that instead of looking at election as determining the proper order to result in God's glory we should look at God's unchanging character and attributes since His Holiness is responsible for His Desire (in my opinion). I think this would make justice a result of sin, justice a result of righteousness, and mercy a result of Christ righteousness making mercy just.---INFRALAPSARIANISM
> (I like the word INFRA better than SUPRA, I don't like the word SUPERMAN)



Charles,

Supralapsarianism is built upon God's character. While all of God's attributes are compatible or equivalent in power and order, we can, I think, rightly affirm that God's most basic characteristic is His aseity. Given the implications I listed above, I don't think infralapsarianism exemplifies this aspect of God's aseity. Supralapsarianism gives reason and purpose to each of the decrees in the most simple and consistent form. Infralapsarianism leaves counter-purposes and an unexplainable purpose for Creation (and it doesn't adequately handle the verses in the Ephesians).

-----Added 9/10/2009 at 11:52:03 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> Radical_Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > This seems like a good topic for me a relatively new reformed believer as well to pine in on a question I have regarding this and a few other debates.
> ...



I can agree that the infra/supra debate is not a subject matter for novices, nor is it a cornerstone doctrine, but it is not the case that the covenants are not dependent upon a particular view of infra or supra. Either all of God's decrees and acts are of one complete and logical system, or there is confusion and disconnection in the various thoughts and acts of God. All things hold together in God in some definite way, even if we are incapable of discovering just how.


----------

