Supra vs Infra

[Proeliator]

Which do you prescribe to and why?

 

[Jon_]

Supra.

3.2 Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

Although, I think the distinction can be considered somewhat silly as God, being eternal, knows and ordains all things immediately (which is why I think supra is the obvious answer). Infra should not even be a consideration, but many people do not quite understand the distinction between time and eternity, so we end up addressing the issue—rather unfruitfully and unedifyingly, I might add.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[pinkieposies]

Which do you prescribe to and why?

Well, for right now I have no idea what you are talking about, but now I need to know so I will try to go figure it out and come back to tell you!


.:Erin:.​

 

[HiredGoon]

Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism by Loraine Boettner.

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism by Herman Bavinck.

 

[inchristalone221]

Although, I think the distinction can be considered somewhat silly as God, being eternal, knows and ordains all things immediately (which is why I think supra is the obvious answer). Infra should not even be a consideration, but many people do not quite understand the distinction between time and eternity, so we end up addressing the issue—rather unfruitfully and unedifyingly, I might add.

This is also my opinion of the issue. Or to quote a friend of mine (upon his having the issue explained to him) "seems kind of a dumb debate doesn't it?"

 

[Lambeth1595]

Supralapsarianism because God chose Jacob and rejected Esau before they had done any good or evil icluding in his mind.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Okay.. I am unfamiliar with this. I have to research more before I vote.

 

[Lambeth1595]

Okay.. I am unfamiliar with this. I have to research more before I vote.

Google search them is my advise

 

[ReformedAnglican]

I am a supralapsarian.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

I believe I remember Thos. Goodwin saying sublapsarian was the proper view. If there is one issue upon which there are good men on both sides, surely this is it.

 

[frumanchu]

Infralapsarian because I believe the decree of election was made in the context of the decree of the Fall, not prior to it.

 

[ReformedAnglican]

Infralapsarian because I believe the decree of election was made in the context of the decree of the Fall, not prior to it.

so what was the purpose of God decreeing the Fall?

 

[cubanito]

Neither view makes sense. Both assume that a temporal linear logical system is applicable to the Eternal Being, which is false. In short, God does not fit in either box. God does not think as we do, one thought leading to another. With God there are no decreeS, there is no cause and effect, there is no time. With God, in His pre-incarnate Divine essence, cause and effect, and all actions, are a constant immediate instant occurence. There is but one Decree of God, as anything else violates the concept of aseity.

The Reformers paid too much heed to human reason, and failed to account for the Holyness of God. God is not like us. He does niot think as we do. For Him the end is as the beginning, both known both infinitely and infinitessimally.

Both SL and IL are products of linear western logic. Neither applies to God, because God is neither linear nor temporal. I do not suggest a retreat to mysticism, irrationality nor poat-modernism. Rather an examination of the system of logic which underlies some Reformed positions. This system of logic, essentially borrowed from Aristotle, Euclid and Plato is not applicable in certain situations (read non-Euclidian geometries and Goedel's theorems).

JR

 

[ReformedAnglican]

Both assume that a temporal linear logical system is applicable to the Eternal Being, which is false.

Not at all. We recognise that they happened all at once but we seek to find out in what LOGICAL ORDER they fit.

 

[inchristalone221]

Yes, cause and effect can be independent of time. God's ultimate design in bringing glory to Himself is the cause of all His other decrees. The point of this infra/supralapsarian debate is the cause and effect relationship between the fall and election. Ultimately it's a silly issue, but rather fun to rail on about.

 

[Jon_]

Neither view makes sense. Both assume that a temporal linear logical system is applicable to the Eternal Being, which is false. In short, God does not fit in either box. God does not think as we do, one thought leading to another.

This is a petitio principii concerning the nature of logic. Logic is neither temporal nor linear. And logic is applicable to God. God thinks logically. But it is true that God does not think sequentially. (Linear is not the best word to use in this sense.)

Simply because we form logical arguments in sequence does not mean that God does. This is a fallacy called affirming the consequent. Logic is not temporal and it does not follow that all logical inferences are thought of sequentially. They are not sequential in God's mind.

With God there are no decreeS, there is no cause and effect, there is no time.

The last of these statements is correct. The first is at best equivocal, otherwise, false. And the second is just plain wrong.

God most certainly does decree.

(Psalm 2:7 KJV) I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

​

(If what was meant is that there is no supra/sublapsarian decree, then this should have been said. If what was meant is that there is only a single decree, then see my treatment below.)

There is also certainly cause and effect, though not temporal or physical. I believe your objection is a bit equivocal in this sense. I believe you are referring to temporal cause and effect, which is certainly non-applicable to God. But logical cause and effect certainly does. For instance, God could not have possibly ordained Christ's substitutionary atonement if mankind remained righteous.

With God, in His pre-incarnate Divine essence, cause and effect, and all actions, are a constant immediate instant occurence.

Your use of "pre-incarnate" here as a modifier of "Divine essence" confuses me a bit. The Divine essence is completely unaffected by the incarnation. It is only Christ's human nature that experiences temporality. This is true post-incarnation as well, for the divine and human natures of Christ are separate and distinct.

There is but one Decree of God, as anything else violates the concept of aseity.

This is now truly an equivocation. This objection really holds no water because we all believe that God has immutably ordained all things before the foundation of the world. We are speaking in colloquial terms that aid understanding when we speak of the "many" decrees of God. These are separate in our minds only, of course, but it is not impious or irreverent to speak of them as such. The Bible describes various aspects of God's eternal decree in the singular (see Job 28:26, Ps. 2:7; 148:6, Dan. 4:24), which, obviously, means the Bible speaks of many "decrees." I don't suppose you object to the Scriptures using anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms, so I don't understand the objection to speaking of God's decrees.

The Reformers paid too much heed to human reason, and failed to account for the Holyness of God. God is not like us. He does niot think as we do. For Him the end is as the beginning, both known both infinitely and infinitessimally.

If God is not like us then how are we made in his image? If God does not think like us then how do you know? If you know that God does not think like us then it follows you know how God thinks, but then you would think like God, for to know how he thinks you must first think like him. It is true that God knows all things infinitely, but how does it follow that we cannot know anything like he does from this truth? It does not follow that since God knows infinitely that we cannot even know finitely. How do you justify revelation on such theological skepticism?

Both SL and IL are products of linear western logic. Neither applies to God, because God is neither linear nor temporal.

You have failed to demonstrate this conclusion. Your assertion is false.

I do not suggest a retreat to mysticism, irrationality nor poat-modernism.

It certainly sounds like it. Your statement above about us not knowing anything like God does sounds a whole lot like Vantillianism to me. Methinks you do not understand the implications of what you are saying. But that seems natural, you deny that logical inference is always applicable, which is an outrageous petitio principii and an obvious inconsistency.

Rather an examination of the system of logic which underlies some Reformed positions. This system of logic, essentially borrowed from Aristotle, Euclid and Plato is not applicable in certain situations (read non-Euclidian geometries and Goedel's theorems).

This is a very silly and very ignorant position. I will try to unravel it.

First of all, "this system of logic" is the system of logic. For you to even question the law of contradiction is to use the law of contradiction. When you say "the law of contradiction" you mean the law of contradition and not "not the law of contradiction." All language is based on logic. The word "logic" means logic and not "truck," or "ice cream," or "blue," or "the square root of minus one." To say that logic sometimes does not apply is to make a statement that assumes logic always applies. Since all language is based on the law of contradiction, it follows that if your statement is put in language, that it assumes logic is true, otherwise the statement is self-contradictory. If you say: "language is not based on logic," then you also say, "language is based on logic," because the interpretation of your statement is not bound by logic. Therefore, if we know we are justified by faith, but our knowledge is not like God's and logic does not always apply, then it could be true that we are not justified by faith. It might even be true that Jesus is not the propiation for our sins. Thus, it might be true that we are all hellbound.

You see, your position, while presuming to piously preserve God's incomprehensibility actually makes complete nonsense of the issue and results in an absurd theological skepticism, from which pit you can never hope to emerge. Moreover, just about everything you have presented here has been nothing but baseless assertion, with no basis in either Scripture, or in necessary inference.

And finally, you do not seem to know much about geometry, either. Euclidean geometry is not established on logic, but on five axioms. Other forms of geometry, such as hyperbolic geometry, deny Euclid's parallel postulate. These systems utilize logic to deduce their theorems, but the systems are formed on indemonstrable axioms, which are, for all intents and purposes, entirely arbitrary. Both Euclid and Gödel made use of logic, but their theorems were not deduced from logic, they were deduced from arbitrary, indemonstrable axioms.

As to your assertion that logic is "borrowed from Aristotle," you err again. Aristotle was merely the first person to formulate a logical system. Aristotle did not "invent" logic, he was merely first to codify it. And in any case, the laws of logic are clearly laid out in the Scriptures. The law of identity in Ex. 3.14, contradiction in 2 Cor. 1:18, and excluded middle in Mt. 12:30. From these three laws, we can deduce the 24 valid syllogisms that comprise traditional term logic.

I think that pretty much demolishes your objections.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[inchristalone221]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jon_ again.

Just about the most repeated and annoying statement made by this website.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I agree with the great Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert Lewis Dabney on this issue. In his Systematic Theology he wrote "In my opinion this is a question which never ought to have been raised. Both schemes are illogical and contradictory to the true state of facts...God's decree has no succession; and to Him nonsuccessive order of parts; because it is a cotemporaneous unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intuition. In this thing, the statements of both parties are untrue to God's thought. The true statement of the matter is, that in this co-etaneous, unit plan, one part of the plan is devised by God with reference to a state of facts which He intended to result from another part of the plan; but all parts equally present, and all equally primary to His mind." (Systematic Theology pg. 233) also found on the web here.

God thinks one thought that encompasses all. The Lapsarian controversy came about because men went too far in their speculations about the secret things of God.

If one takes and pushes the "Supra" position he may stumble into hyper-Calvinism, and if he takes and pushes the "infra" position he will likely fall into Arminianism. Thankfully most Calvinists, who take a position, have not followed these positions to their logical conclusions.

I think Dabney was right and therefore I will vote for choice three even though it is not the wording I would like.

In Christ,
Kenith

Ps. Dabney's Systematic Theology is a Reformed Classic that I highly recommend.

 

[DrWarfield]

Neither view makes sense. Both assume that a temporal linear logical system is applicable to the Eternal Being, which is false. In short, God does not fit in either box. God does not think as we do, one thought leading to another. With God there are no decreeS, there is no cause and effect, there is no time. With God, in His pre-incarnate Divine essence, cause and effect, and all actions, are a constant immediate instant occurence. There is but one Decree of God, as anything else violates the concept of aseity.

The Reformers paid too much heed to human reason, and failed to account for the Holyness of God. God is not like us. He does niot think as we do. For Him the end is as the beginning, both known both infinitely and infinitessimally.

Both SL and IL are products of linear western logic. Neither applies to God, because God is neither linear nor temporal. I do not suggest a retreat to mysticism, irrationality nor poat-modernism. Rather an examination of the system of logic which underlies some Reformed positions. This system of logic, essentially borrowed from Aristotle, Euclid and Plato is not applicable in certain situations (read non-Euclidian geometries and Goedel's theorems).

JR

So was there a time when Satan was a "good" angel? In other words was there a point in eternity past when Lucifer became Satan? Of course there was! All of this time/eternity/logic talk (yes I have my research on the issue) seems a little irrational to me.

Now I do agree with you brother that we as Reformed people should examine the system of logic which is used to argue some Reformed positions. An eg of that is this whole Supra vs Infra thing, I think it is a "fair dinkum" big waiste of time, and I have in the past waisted a lot of time on it myself, but we all grow up sometime. This debate, in my opinion, is supra-Bible, that is, it truly goes beyond the Biblical data and revelation.

Having said all of that I am concerned that some Reformed people are flying far too close to the spinning rotar blades of Postmodernism and the whole time/eternity/logic issue which you raised is an eg of that.

Regards in Christ,
DrWarfield.

 

[ReformedAnglican]

God's decree has no succession; and to Him nonsuccessive order of parts; because it is a cotemporaneous unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intuition. In this thing, the statements of both parties are untrue to God's thought. The true statement of the matter is, that in this co-etaneous, unit plan, one part of the plan is devised by God with reference to a state of facts which He intended to result from another part of the plan; but all parts equally present, and all equally primary to His mind." (Systematic Theology pg. 233) also found on the web here.

But we are not debating the order of God's decree for it was but one decree but rather we are debating the LOGICAL order within that decree of what must come first, second etc.