SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Infralapsarianism rules.
Infralapsarian vs. supralapsarian
- Thread starter xcrunner12
- Start date
- Status
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Is that a yes or a no?
And I would not say that God is a logical thinking, I would say that he is NOT an illogical thinker. (I'm not even sure if the term think can necessarily be applied to God in his essense, but that can be a discussion for another day)
This does not cash out the same as what you are saying without a lot of assertions.
CT
[Edited on 6-27-2006 by ChristianTrader]
Hermonta,
By "logical" is not meant what God has in His mind, since He knows all things intuitively and at once; but it refers to the human conception of means and ends. The decree determines Christ must die. It also determines it will be done by wicked hands. One is a means to an end in our conception of it. From this example it can be seen that the order of the decrees, i.e., the objects which are decreed, is not a speculative point, but one which enters into the very fabric of written revelation.
The ultimate ends are the secret things of the Lord, to which we should never seek to pry into.
By "logical" is not meant what God has in His mind, since He knows all things intuitively and at once; but it refers to the human conception of means and ends. The decree determines Christ must die. It also determines it will be done by wicked hands. One is a means to an end in our conception of it. From this example it can be seen that the order of the decrees, i.e., the objects which are decreed, is not a speculative point, but one which enters into the very fabric of written revelation.
The ultimate ends are the secret things of the Lord, to which we should never seek to pry into.
Jeff,
With regard to God having things before His mind, please see the post above to Hermonta. It is an improper manner of speaking. There isn't any succession in God's thoughts. Hence it is null to speak of God having the fall in consideration when electing. It is only transferring the chronology to God's mind, which is not seemly.
With regard to God having things before His mind, please see the post above to Hermonta. It is an improper manner of speaking. There isn't any succession in God's thoughts. Hence it is null to speak of God having the fall in consideration when electing. It is only transferring the chronology to God's mind, which is not seemly.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
The whole discussion is about what God thought about first, second etc. If that is off limits, what is there to debate?
We know what was decreed because God has revealed such. If that was the only question then the infra vs. supra would not be a discussion because they both agree as to what is decreed.
Which is what I am saying about the infra vs. supra thing altogether, that it is an example of prying.
CT
[Edited on 6-27-2006 by ChristianTrader]
No, that is impossible. However, God has condescended to be known in human thoughts and forms. Hence it is legitimate.
Remember, it is a question of means and end. Ultimately this is what the Calvinist is arguing against the Arminian. Election does not depend upon faith. We argue faith was ordained as a means whereby the elect would be saved. Thus the written revelation of God presents it. Likewise supralapsarian argues that Scripture presents the fall as a means to ultimately manifest the sons of God, Rom. 8.
I tend to think that it is rather an earnest endeavour to systematise the biblical data.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
He has condescended but that does not imply that he has given us a playbook on how his uncondescended self works. Remember the scriptures tell us that such occured before time. Outside of time is outside of God's condescention.
Alright and we agree about the means and end. The only issue is the ordering, which I do not see how that can be anything but prying.
The Bible clearly reveals that it does not depend on anything that occurs in time.
Completely correct.
That sounds good but the infra vs. supra wants to go beyond this and then pry into what order God had to be thinking in order to formulate the plan that lead to a certain end.
I think the Biblical data can be systematized quite nicely without coming close to answering the ordering of God's thinking.
CT
The decree is concerned with actions which take place in time. We are only talking about the decree ad extra, that is, about the objects that the decree concerns itself with. These come to pass in time in an orderly manner. It is very important to grasp this concept as fundamental: the discussion of the order of the decrees states nothing concerning the internal workings of the divine mind in making the decree. That being the case, we are not prying into God's mind when we ask what logical relationship does one thing decreed bear to another thing decreed.
As do I.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
I agree that the decree is concerned with actions which take place in time, but is that what infra vs. supra is concerned with: What happens in time?
Really? If this is the case, then how can reformed people disagree. The timeline is obvious. However reformed people have disagreed about infra and supra for a while now. So that discussion must include more than just the discussion of the timeline.
Alright, sounds cogent.
I agree with what you have said, but I have never seen the argument between infra and supra characterized in this fashion.
CT
Oops. I sent the last post prematurely. This follows on:
Yes. All things are decreed. All things bear a logical order to one another. It is the decree which gives them that order. Hence it is right to enquire what the logical order is concerning things decreed.
Timeline? That sounds like chronology again. We should only be interested in logical order. Man was created last, but there is no doubt that he is first in order.
Yes. All things are decreed. All things bear a logical order to one another. It is the decree which gives them that order. Hence it is right to enquire what the logical order is concerning things decreed.
Timeline? That sounds like chronology again. We should only be interested in logical order. Man was created last, but there is no doubt that he is first in order.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
I think we are back to prying again. Man has logical orders, but does God? It is a human concept being applied onto God. God revealed his decree in time, why exactly do we need more than that?
You really cannot separate logic from time, unless you want to introduce God type logic as opposed to man type logic (which still would not be helpful). If you do separate logic from time then one's conception of logic implodes.
And on top of this, it is unnecessary because the Bible clearly reveals that man was God's top creation.
CT
Actually, you can not conflate logic and time. Logical order is non-temporal - it has nothing to do with time. The question is not what did God think first, then second, but what is the logical order of his decrees vs the order they were carried out.
Again, logic is not a function of time. A true proposition is true for all times, places, and people. A and ~A is always false, A or ~A is always true, A is A is always true. These three laws of logic are about the state of propositional truth, the elements of knowledge which are not functions of time, place, or person.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
This is just false because if they were completely independent (at least from our perspective) then you would not have to check time, before doing logic. However you do you have to check time (to see if time differences matter before doing logic). For example when looking for contradiction, you have to check to see if the issue changes over time, before calling something a contradiction.
The problem off the bat is to justify the assertion that God has logical orders just like humans do. We have to order things due to finite limitations. God has no such limitation so why should he necessarily think like we do.
Time is a component of the definition of the law of non contradiction. You have to check to see how time acts on the proposition before you can decide how to logically deal with it.
You agree that over time, propositions change. So that means before you can apply certain logical rules, you have to check to see if the prop has changed. That rules out the claim that logic is independent from time.
My claim is that as a finite creature in God's universe, you cannot do logic independent of time, and none of your counters work.
CT
I don't know what your talking about here. A contradiction is a contradiction (law of identity). Something can not "be" a contradiction and "not-be" a contradiction at a later time.
Logical order is not temporal. He may not "think" using processes we do - God is always aware of what he knows - but the logical order of his thoughts is still the same or we could not know them and the Word would be meaningless.
No, you don't. Time does not act on a proposition. If you went to the zoo yesterday - then on June 2010, it is true you went to the zoo in June 2006. That truth will always be true, no matter who knows it, or when, or where - you went to the zoo in June 2006. Time may be an integral element to the meaning of a statement, but the propositional meaning of the statement does not change with time.
No, they don't.
No, you don't.
No, it doesn't.
When we "think" logically, our thoughts realize the logical forms of the propositions that make up our knowledge. But the forms that the laws of logic describe do not change with time - otherwise knowledge and logical thinking become impossible. You have a basic misunderstanding about the nature of propositional truth.
Propositions do not change meaning or truth values over time. A written statement may have different meaning as it applies to different contexts of time and place and situations - but the propositional meaning of a given statement is fixed.
Again, review the laws of logic. There is not element of time in the laws. A and ~A is false. This never changes. A or ~A is true. Forever. A is A is true always.
Equivocation - when one uses a term or a statement in reference to more than one time, person, place, situation. When you equivocate you can seem to say A and ~A is true because you have actually used two different propositions in place of A. But logic demands that for your reasoning to be valid, your A must always refer to the same proposition in your line of reasoning.
When you change the time or place or person, you are using a different proposition. It's not the same proposition with a different meaning - a proposition is the meaning of a statement. Since a proposition can not change time, place, person, etc. - it's truth state and meaning will never change when examined from another place, time, person, etc.
[Edited on 6-28-2006 by Civbert]
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
The problem is that you missed the entire point. You cannot use the laws of logic without bringing time into the equation. If you do not bring time into the equation then you will not be able to determine the meaning. If you do not know the meaning of a proposition then you cannot determine if it is contradictory to something else.
Remember I never said anything about forms changing, I made the claim concerning the use. If you cannot use it independent then why claim that it is independent?
But just to be sure. Give me a link to a definition of the law of non contradiction. Not some version you made up. It is unfathomable for you to make the claim that it is independent from time.
All you are doing here is saying, once the context has been determined, the meaning stays the same, and you can use the laws of logic. Which is exactly my point. Time is necessary in determining the context.
Give me a link to a site that defines the law of contradiction and see if time is a component of the definition?
If you do not take time into consideration, how do you know if you have equivocated or not? Again logic is dependent on time.
So the only way you can make your argument is to say that you can use the laws of logic without knowing what a proposition means. And the answer is obvious, you cannot. So your independence thesis fails.
CT
Incorrect. Time is not a necessary variable in determining the meaning of a proposition. Some propositions have time references, and some do not.
The laws of logic are not a process - they are themselves propositions about the state of things. And they make no reference to time.
I did give you a definition. A & ~A is false.
"No lie is of the truth." (1 John 2:21) - this does not have any reference to time - and one does not need any time reference to understand its meaning. Many proposition have no necessary time reference in order to understand them.
~(A & ~A) is the law of contradiction. It is false the a things is and is not. A proposition can not be both true and false.
Nope. I have show it does not.
Actually, you can use logic without knowing the meaning of propositions - formal logic is formal. The validity of inference is a function of form, not content. So even if you do not know the meaning of A B and C, it is still true that
if A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C.
And it is true that: ~p + ~q = ~( p & q )
And it is true that if (a implies b) and a, then b.
And not once did I need to give a time reference.
And for meaning - no time reference is critical to understand the following:
"Again logic is dependent on time."
"I love pizza".
"Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
"All cows give milk."
"God is love."
Now here's a few statements where a time reference is critical to understanding the meaning:
"Tomorrow I will go to the dentist."
"You always say that when we go to the movies."
"But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. "
"Last week I was pretty busy".
It's actually harder to find statements who's meaning depends on a time reference than not. And often the reference is because a specific "time" is the logical subject or category.
We merely have to look at the Calvinist contention against Arminianism and Amyraldianism to see that it is a legitimate process to define the order of God's decrees -- always keeping in mind, however, that we are dealing with the things decreed ad extra, not the intrinsic workings of God's mind.
If we were to ask, why did God choose this person over that, it would be prying. Those reasons rest with God alone. But to ask, what logical order do things decreed sustain to each other, is simply to follow the revelation of God in a path that it plainly leads us in.
Let's apply it to an uncontentious area -- creation. In God's order, the animals exist to serve man. Now God must have decreed it to be so. Have we pried into the secret things of the Lord by saying as much? Of course not.
As for the temporal element -- it only enters into the execution of God's decrees. It is impossible for us to speak about the things decreed only if we do not distinguish between the decree and its execution.
Blessings!
If we were to ask, why did God choose this person over that, it would be prying. Those reasons rest with God alone. But to ask, what logical order do things decreed sustain to each other, is simply to follow the revelation of God in a path that it plainly leads us in.
Let's apply it to an uncontentious area -- creation. In God's order, the animals exist to serve man. Now God must have decreed it to be so. Have we pried into the secret things of the Lord by saying as much? Of course not.
As for the temporal element -- it only enters into the execution of God's decrees. It is impossible for us to speak about the things decreed only if we do not distinguish between the decree and its execution.
Blessings!
I have two questions for you guys. Remember I'm still just a teenager without your knowledge.
Would someone here mind providing a brief description of supralapsarianism? I had always linked it to hyperCalvinism, before going over this thread.
For armourbearer - why not simply assign the reason for God's unconditional election to His will? For this very reason have I raised you up... so that I mihgt demonstrate my power through you...
Second, I know this has been mentioned elsewhere in this topic, but isn't the infralapsarian view at least implied in the creeds? Going through the canons of Dort, it always refers to God's overt actions in bringing His elect to faith, but when it comes to the reprobate, they are simply "passed by". The WCF says something similar.
CoD: Article 6: God's Eternal Decision
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act--unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just--of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God's Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.
WCF: 3 VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.
Although I will admit that at least one section in the WCF seems supra:
WCF III:III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death,
But doesn't that contradict itself? Or does it mean that while the sin and unrepentance of the reprobate are not caused by God, their predestination is? I'm somewhat confused.
Would someone here mind providing a brief description of supralapsarianism? I had always linked it to hyperCalvinism, before going over this thread.
For armourbearer - why not simply assign the reason for God's unconditional election to His will? For this very reason have I raised you up... so that I mihgt demonstrate my power through you...
Second, I know this has been mentioned elsewhere in this topic, but isn't the infralapsarian view at least implied in the creeds? Going through the canons of Dort, it always refers to God's overt actions in bringing His elect to faith, but when it comes to the reprobate, they are simply "passed by". The WCF says something similar.
CoD: Article 6: God's Eternal Decision
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act--unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just--of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God's Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.
WCF: 3 VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.
Although I will admit that at least one section in the WCF seems supra:
WCF III:III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death,
But doesn't that contradict itself? Or does it mean that while the sin and unrepentance of the reprobate are not caused by God, their predestination is? I'm somewhat confused.
Last edited:
Calvinism is pretty definable. People can be Calvinists and just hold the Canons of Dordt. Frankly, its pretty ridiculous for an infra to accuse all supralapsarians of hyper-calvinism, and equally stupid for a supra to accuse all infralapsarians of implicit arminianism. What does history teach us? It teaches us that there are a host of infralapsarians, most of whom never once even twitched toward arminiamism, and a much lesser number of supralapsarians, but most of them weren't hypercalvinists.
So if we can take anything from the historical observation concerning the "drift" of these positions, both approaches seem to be pretty theologically stable, all things considered.
So if we can take anything from the historical observation concerning the "drift" of these positions, both approaches seem to be pretty theologically stable, all things considered.
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Reymond's ordering does work nicely, V. Cheung agrees and adds:
Supralapsarianism is the teleological order and infralapsarianism is the historical order. Since the purpose for discussing the order of the eternal decrees is to discover the logical arrangement of the formulation, and not the historical order of the plan's execution, supralapsarianism is the biblical position.
Supralapsarianism is the teleological order and infralapsarianism is the historical order. Since the purpose for discussing the order of the eternal decrees is to discover the logical arrangement of the formulation, and not the historical order of the plan's execution, supralapsarianism is the biblical position.
Hmmm.... Well, I admit I'm not confident on the issue, but I would probably classify myself as an infra, with some definite supra tendencies. As I said in my previous post, I'd always associated supra with double predestination, which in my mind isn't a big deal to someone who believes in unconditional election, since that's kind of implied.
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
Yeah, double predestination (whether infra/supra style) is a logical implication of a view of election. It is here that most Lutherans fall into a cop-out mode, saying that they believe only in Single Predestination, thereby accounting for the Elect, but leaving the way the damned are damned as a "tension" in the Scriptures. It is to the credit of Luther and C.F.W. Wathier that they understood and accepted this logical consequence.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
