Supra vs Infra

[McWilliams]

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.

Well, is not the whole debate on Supra/Infra, chicken/egg confusion regarding just when God decreed?

I agree that we think differently than God and that His thinking has no succession. However, we cant think for Him and for ourselves too! We definitely think in more linear terms and everything from creation has succession. We like to get a grip on the order of things, as in 1,2,3,. Truly much of this is impossible with God and His order of things.

Well, did God decree election before or after the fall? I say His decree came before the fall because I figure He planned everything start to finish, including the fall, Satan and all other details! However, why is that such an issue with us? Is it just one more little detail or an effort of ours to get into God's business? "Neither do I concern myself with great matters, nor with things too profound for me! Psalm 131:1

When we search for more learning I think it important to consider, in what way does this information cause me to draw nearer to Him, live to glorify Him and how can I learn more of Him and His Word in 2006 that is reflected in my life?

 

[ReformedAnglican]

When we search for more learning I think it important to consider, in what way does this information cause me to draw nearer to Him, live to glorify Him and how can I learn more of Him and His Word in 2006 that is reflected in my life?

Agreed. As a supralapsarian I see that my election was to glorify God and so I live my life accordingly by His grace.

 

[frumanchu]

Well, did God decree election before or after the fall? I say His decree came before the fall because I figure He planned everything start to finish, including the fall, Satan and all other details!

Just to clarify, the infralapsarian position is NOT that God decreed the election after the fall happened in time. Both the supra- and infralapsarian positions believe that all the decrees we are discussing (fall, election, reprobation, Christ's atonement, etc) were made in eternity past prior to Gen 1:1.

This is by no means an easy topic, and most of the historical Reformed creeds purposely took neither side of the issue because it is not seen as dogmatic. IIRC, Calvin's writings implied a more infra position whereas Beza was solidly supra.

The above statement is true to an extent...either position, pushed too far, leads to error. If I have more time in a bit, I'll further elaborate on why I take the infralapsarian position.

 

[ReformedAnglican]

I'll further elaborate on why I take the infralapsarian position.

I am interested . "neither having done any good or evil" established me as a supralapsarian for if the election of Jacob was not based upon foreseen faith/good works then the reprobation of Esau can hardly have been based upon foreseen things!

 

[McWilliams]

Thanks Fru and ReformedAnglican! These discussions do help to clear a few cobwebs on some issues!(and add a few others it seems)
However, the very term Infralapsarianism is Latin for "after the fall" and specifies that which relates to the decrees of election and reprobation. The issues involved are God's eternal decrees and man's will--how can the one be affirmed without denying the other. If one argues for God's predetermination of humanity's fate this tends to deny free will and threatens to make God responsible for sin. On the other hand, if one argues for the freedom of the human will, thus making people responsible for sin, this can threaten the sovereignty of God, since His decrees then are contingent upon humankind's decision.
What is the order of the eternal decrees of God? Infras argue for this order:
1. God decreed the creation of humanity-- a good, blessed creation, not marred or glawed.
2. God decreed that humanity would be allowed to fall through its own self-determination.
3. God decreed to save some of the fallen.
4. God decreed to leave the rest to their just fate of condemnation.
5. God provided the Redeemer for the saved.
6. God sent the Holy Spirit to effect redemption among the saved.
The key to the order of the decrees is that God decreed election to salvation after the fall--not before; hence the name of the view "infralapsarianism" The Supralapsarian view would offer an order in which the decree for election and reprobation occurs before the creation. Those on both sides of the issue cite weighty arguments for their positions, quote Scripture as a foundation, and comb through Augustine, Calvin and others for support. Generally most Reformed assemblies have refused to make either infra or supra normative, although the tendency has been to favor the former without condemning those who hold to the latter.
(taken from Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)

Seems the more I learn, the less I know!

 

[ReformedAnglican]

Supralapsarianism

[size=+2]Advanced Information[/size]

The doctrine that God decreed both election and reprobation before the fall. Supralapsarianism differs from infralapsarianism on the relation of God's decree to human sin. The differences go back to the conflict between Augustine and Pelagius. Before the Reformation, the main difference was whether Adam's fall was included in God's eternal decree; supralapsarians held that it was, but infralapsarians acknowledged only God's foreknowledge of sin. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were agreed that Adam's fall was somehow included in God's decree; it came to be referred to as a "permissive decree," and all insisted that God was in no way the author of sin. As a result of the Reformers' agreement, after the Reformation the distinction between infra - and supralapsarianism shifted to differences on the logical order of God's decrees.

Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva, was the first to develop supralapsarianism in this new sense. By the time of the Synod of Dort in 1618 - 19, a heated intraconfessional controversy developed between infra - and supralapsarians; both positions were represented at the synod. Francis Gomarus, the chief opponent of James Arminius, was a supralapsarian.

The question of the logical, not the temporal, order of the eternal decrees reflected differences on God's ultimate goal in predestination and on the specific objects of predestination. Supralapsarians considered God's ultimate goal to be his own glory in election and reprobation, while infralapsarians considered predestination subordinate to other goals. The object of predestination, according to supralapsarians, was uncreated and unfallen humanity, while infralapsarians viewed the object as created and fallen humanity.

The term "supralapsarianism" comes from the Latin words supra and lapsus; the decree of predestination was considered to be "above" (supra) or logically "before" the decree concerning the fall (lapsus), while the infralapsarians viewed it as "below" (infra) or logically "after" the decree concerning the fall. The contrast of the two views is evident from the following summaries.

The logical order of the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is:

• (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.

Infralapsarians were in the majority at the Synod of Dort. The Arminians tried to depict all the Calvinists as representatives of the "repulsive" supralapsarian doctrine. Four attempts were made at Dort to condemn the supralapsarian view, but the efforts were unsuccessful. Although the Canons of Dort do not deal with the order of the divine decrees, they are infralapsarian in the sense that the elect are "chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction" (I,7; cf.I,1). The reprobate "are passed by in the eternal decree" and God "decreed to leave (them) in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves" and "to condemn and punish them forever...for all their sins" (I,15).

Defenders of supralapsarianism continued after Dort. The chairman of the Westminister Assembly, William Twisse, was a supralapsarian but the Westminister standards do not favor either position. Although supralapsarianism never received confessional endorsement within the Reformed churches, it has been tolerated within the confessional boundaries. In 1905 the Reformed churches of the Netherlands and the Christian Reformed Church in 1908 adopted the Conclusions of Utrecht, which stated that "our Confessional Standards admittedly follow the infralapsarian presentation in respect to the doctrine of election, but that it is evident...that this in no wise intended to exclude or condemn the supralapsarian presentation." Recent defenders of the supralapsarian position have been Gerhardus Vos, Herman Hoeksema, and G H Kersten.

F H Klooster
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
L Berkhof, Systematic Theology; H Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics; H Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics; G H Kersten, Reformed Dogmatics; B B Warfield, "Predestination in the Reformed Confessions," in Studies in Theology.

 

[ReformedAnglican]

found at: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

 

[cygnusx1]

basically the whole issue came about because of Election ........ no one seems to mind God Electing people , WHAT TENDS TO ALARM PEOPLE IS GOD DOES NOT ELECT EVERYONE.


So The difficult yet Biblical doctrine of 'reprobation' came up , which inspired the question ..

Are men Reprobated and condemned by an act of Justice or an act of Sovereignty .

The scriptures affirm BOTH.

and so it is that Calvin has been quoted as a believer of both views depending upon which part of scripture he is commentating / preaching upon .

 

[cygnusx1]

this quote is helpful...​

The Cause
The Cause of reprobation does not lie in anything outside of God, not even in sin, but in God’s absolute sovereignty. “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Nay but, 0 man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” (Rom. 9:11,12,18,20,21)

Righteous punishment certainly follows sin, but the reason why God determined to be glorified in exercising His righteousness does not lie in sin, but in God’s sovereignty. Sin is the meriting cause of punishment. The determining cause of the state of reprobation is the sovereignty of God. Thus reprobation is the independent decree of God from eternity, the sovereign, the decreeing God Himself. It is an act of the Father’s good pleasure. “Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in Thy sight”. (Matt. 11:26)

Sin, unbelief, hardness, and whatever else is mentioned as a reason for the righteous judgment of God, all follows the decree of God, and is not the cause of the decree. God is sovereign in election, but also in rejection. Both depend on nothing but God’s sovereign pleasure, and, being God’s decree they cannot be dependent upon some one or some thing outside of God. “The LORD hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.” (Prov. 16:4)

If sin were the cause of reprobation, then God would be dependent upon man’s actions in His decrees. Moreover, then all men would be reprobated, because all have sinned.

Not general. As election is not general, neither is reprobation. There are no general decrees. God’s decrees are limited, also the decree of predestination. It concerns certain people, known to God by name. Neither then is reprobation a general decree, in which God only would have determined to condemn the unbelievers and the wicked, without having predestinated the individual persons.

That is the doctrine of the Pelagians and Arminians. But such a general decree would not be a decree. Exercising God’s righteousness to the condemnation of the wicked needs no separate decree for it flows from His holy Essence, which is perfectly righteous. Thus the Scriptures say very emphatically that God did not decree to elect and reject in general, but that He hated Esau and loved Jacob. (Rom. 9:11,18,20-22)

Pharaoh is also a proof of this: “For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My Name might be declared throughout all the earth.” (Rom. 9:17)

Judas went to his own place. (Acts 1:25) This place was determined by God. The reprobate, being persons known by God, are not written in the book of life (Rev. 13:8), are not Christ’s sheep (John 10:26), are appointed to disobedience (I Pet. 2:8), and were before ordained to condemnation. (Jude 4)

Reprobation took place to the glorification of God, especially of His sovereignty and righteousness. God has no desire in the death of sinners in itself. The Lord confirms it with an oath to those who by grace turn to Him. But God does have a desire for the glorification of His perfections. He is the Potter, Who according to His eternal good pleasure, makes from the same lump of clay one vessel to honor, and another unto dishonor. To that end God not only decided to create, but also to form the wicked unto the day of evil; allowing sin, and righteously condemning him who commits the sin. (Rom. 9:18) “For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (II Thess. 2:11,12)

Condemnation is to be distinguished from reprobation. Condemnation is an act of God’s righteousness, and reprobation is an act of His Sovereignty. Reprobation precedes sin, and does not happen because of it, but condemnation follows sin, and is its righteous reward.

The means. The decree of reprobation also determined the means by which it would be fulfilled. These means, however, are not the cause of reprobation, for they do not precede the decree, but follow upon it. These means include allowing the fall along with the resulting blindness: “And He said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not,” (Isa. 6:9); hardness: “Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them, (John 12:39,40); and disobedience: “Disobedient, whereunto they were also appointed.” (I Peter 2:8)

How clearly Scripture shows in all these places that blindness, hardness, and disobedience came according to the determinate counsel of God. Unless God glorifies His grace in man’s heart, he hardens himself in sin. Although the guilt of that hardening lies with man, nevertheless, the Divine reprobation is executed by it. Scripture then also speaks in the texts quoted above in both a positive manner of blinding and hardening, and in a negative manner, as of not enlightening, not showing mercy, and not giving grace. The reprobate are not savingly called (Matt. 20:16); their sins are not forgiven (John 20:23); faith is not given them (Acts 13:46). This is not to be understood in such a sense as if God would work the blinding and hardening Himself, nor as if He would merely allow sin and then wait to see what man would omit or commit, but according to His sovereign will He gives the reprobate over to his own blindness and hardness, and to the deception of Satan. (Romans 9:7-18; I Pet. 2:8) Thus man works out his own judgment to which he was appointed. The hardening in unbelief and the impenitence and withholding of saving grace belong to the means God has determined to use in performing His reprobation. (Jude 4) “I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” (Matt. 11:26,27)

In these words Christ thanks His Father for election and rejection. “Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand”. (Matt. 13:13) It is remarkable that the Lord does not say “so that” but “because” seeing they see not. Therefore He spoke in parables which He explained only to His disciples. John 8:47 and 10:26 mean the same thing: “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” “But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep as I said unto you.”

The means mentioned both in a positive and negative manner lie under the direct determination and ruling of God’s will and serve to perform His reprobation. It is certain that the reprobate are disobedient and shall not see life (John 3:36), because reprobation is unchangeable. The number of reprobates is determined by God as well as their persons. (Rom. 9:11,12) Indeed Scripture teaches us that reprobation comprehends the most people. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matt. 7:13,14) “For many be called, but few chosen.” (Matt. 20:16)

http://www.the-highway.com/Election_Kersten.html

 

[Jon_]

Are men Reprobated and condemned by an act of Justice or an act of Sovereignty .

The scriptures affirm BOTH.

That's right. In fact, in a certain sense, sovereignty and justice are identical because only a sovereign God can be truly just. Unless he exerts complete and total control over his creation, there can be no standard of justice. If God is not completely sovereign and the only person to whom obedience is due then there can be no justice in a "complete" sense, for barring total sovereignty, there are some aspects that would not be subject to God's justice.

Therefore, we conclude that God, as completely sovereign, and hence, completely just, is totally justified in election and reprobation. He set the terms, conditions, and setting for the whole redemptive plan of mankind.

And this is precisely why I affirm supralapsarianism. Sublapsarianism posits that God is reactive in his redemptive plan (eternally reactive no doubt, but reactive nonetheless), but I see the Scriptures as revealing God's redemptive plan as the purpose for us being here and for Christ coming. That is, God eternally decreed that he should be glorified through the redemption of a fallen humanity and ordained the fall as an expedient to this end.

As to the question of whether this is "knowable" or not, I remain ambivalent. If it can be known it can be known through the Scriptures and logical demonstration. I do not find it useless or unnecessary to explore the issue. In this, I reject the attitudes of Luther and Calvin, who, by stroke of conscience, did not seek the Scriptures to see if they spoke on the issue, but believed from faith. This is not necessarily wrong, but neither is it correct to maintain the same of others whose consciences are not barred from searching the Scriptures for such knowledge to the glory of God. After all, who can maintain that one ought not seek such knowledge in the Scriptures? What basis is there for denying one the Christian liberty of searching the Scriptures to see if they are vocal or silent on the matter?

Nevertheless, what I do find useless and unfruitful is bitter dissention over the matter. I do not find the doctrine of the decree to be a defining doctrine of orthodoxy. I should point out, though, that many maintain the Westminster Assembly remained silent on this issue. This is incorrect. The Confession is decidedly supralapsarian, but most people miss the inference.

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.

The sublapsarian view makes God's redemptive plan condition upon the fall, whereas God's redemptive plan is causal to the fall in supralapsarianism. The Confession is clearly supralapsarian, as explicitly illustrated by this article.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Right, Jon. There is no reason whatsoever that brethren should become upset with one another in discussing this issue. There have been too many good men on either side. Rather than become diaagreeable, I have never seen anyone react in any way other than enjoy being in the company of those who are able to discuss it whichever side they are on.

 

[Jon_]

Right, Jon. There is no reason whatsoever that brethren should become upset with one another in discussing this issue. There have been too many good men on either side. Rather than become diaagreeable, I have never seen anyone react in any way other than enjoy being in the company of those who are able to discuss it whichever side they are on.

You've got it, Rolf. The important thing is to not let it become something that causes bitterness and dissention among brethren. Apart from that, I think the Scriptures have something to say on the issue and it behooves us to understand what is said there. And all this, of course, to the praise and glory of our Lord God Almighty, who is the alone fountain of all knowledge.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

would it be possible for those gifted in a knowledge of science (my education is limited) take a look at this thread ...... fresh minds , are you up for it ?


http://www.christianforums.com/t2444266-why-i-think-i-will-never-be-a-calvinist.html&page=27#post20943071

 

[frumanchu]

The question of the logical, not the temporal, order of the eternal decrees reflected differences on God's ultimate goal in predestination and on the specific objects of predestination. Supralapsarians considered God's ultimate goal to be his own glory in election and reprobation, while infralapsarians considered predestination subordinate to other goals.

WHOA there! That is a pretty bad mischaracterization of infralapsarianism. As an infra I firmly believe that God's ultimate goal is His own glory, and that the decrees being discussed all have that same final cause.

The object of predestination, according to supralapsarians, was uncreated and unfallen humanity, while infralapsarians viewed the object as created and fallen humanity.

And this is where I have the biggest issue with the supralapsarian position. It has God sitting there in eternity thinking "I'd like to create...something...that I can use to demonstrate both my justice and mercy, my love and my wrath. I got it...let's create man. I'll make him upright, but in order to demonstrate my wrath upon him I'll have to make sure he sins against me. Now if he sins his race will be an abomination, so I'm going to have to send my Only Begotten to redeem the elect so that I can be both just and the justifier of them."

The major problem is that the fall becomes a necessity. Now I have no problem with the fall itself being a necessity by virtue of the fact that God ordained it thus from all eternity, but I DO have a problem with the decree of the fall being a necessity, and that is exactly what it becomes in the supralapsarian view. Logically speaking, God has already made up His mind that He wants to glorify Himself in pouring out His wrath upon somebody, but until and unless they merit that wrath He cannot justly do so. Thus He must necessarily decree a means of bringing about the material cause of their condemnation.

The infra position would be explained thus:

God from all eternity decided to glorify Himself in a new creation in His image. God foreknew with perfect certainty all contingencies of that new creation...how he would act given whatever God chose to do or not do. In keeping with His formal purpose of glorifying Himself, He chose to bring about through secondary causes the transgression of this first man, bringing he and those whom he represented covenantally under the wrath and condemnation of God. To further manifest His glory, He chose to set His love upon a number of them and redeem them to Himself through the death of Christ. The rest He was content to leave in their condemnation that His justice might be manifest.

One major implication, which I have not thought completely through yet, is what the Covenant of Redemption between the persons of the Trinity has upon the lapsarian positions. I'm relatively new to Covenant Theology and was an infralapsarian well prior to coming to understand the basics of Covenant Theology.

 

[frumanchu]

The sublapsarian view makes God's redemptive plan condition upon the fall, whereas God's redemptive plan is causal to the fall in supralapsarianism. The Confession is clearly supralapsarian, as explicitly illustrated by this article.

Jon, I had a very lengthy (and ugly) argument over that portion of the WCF.

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.

Actually, Jon, I would argue that taking your position on the above leaves the Confession contradicting what it said in the prior section.

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; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

The only way to reconcile the two is with the understanding that God foreknows all possible contingencies and brings about that which He purposes through the secondary cause of those contingencies. The point of 3.2 is that God does not, logically speaking, first foresee what actually comes to pass in time upon the conditions He lays and then chooses to decree it after the fact.

Even assuming as you say that the infra position makes God's plan of redemption conditioned upon the fall, it still does not leave them at odds with the Confession since they still hold that the fall itself was also decreed.

All the major historical Reformed creeds and confessions intentionally do not speak definitively on this issue. Historical Calvinism has allowed for both views, so let's please not manufacture historical evidence where there is none as it only makes this issue that much more difficult to discuss.

 

[Scholar in training]

Neither.

 

[cygnusx1]

Right, Jon. There is no reason whatsoever that brethren should become upset with one another in discussing this issue. There have been too many good men on either side. Rather than become diaagreeable, I have never seen anyone react in any way other than enjoy being in the company of those who are able to discuss it whichever side they are on.

............ but you and I know we have an enemy , and he doesn't really get any pleasure from Christians agreeing .......

 

[Jon_]

Jon, I had a very lengthy (and ugly) argument over that portion of the WCF.

I have no desire to enter into an ugly argument, so I will try to convey my thoughts in as non-antagonistic of a tone as I can. My interest to be edifying in this manner.

Actually, Jon, I would argue that taking your position on the above leaves the Confession contradicting what it said in the prior section.

I'm sorry, but I do not see how this follows. Please demonstrate it.

The only way to reconcile the two is with the understanding that God foreknows all possible contingencies and brings about that which He purposes through the secondary cause of those contingencies. The point of 3.2 is that God does not, logically speaking, first foresee what actually comes to pass in time upon the conditions He lays and then chooses to decree it after the fact.

You are either equivocating on "knowledge" here or you do not quite grasp the relation of foreknowledge to God's decree. Whatever God knows must be true; otherwise, he cannot know it. You seem to be advocating a moderate form of Molinism because you are apparently maintaining that God knows all "possible contingencies", even if they could not come to pass. (For instance, the "possible contingency" that Judas did not betray Christ. Incidently, your term, "possible contingency," is ambiguous, so I will use quotation marks when I use that term.). I am fairly certain that you and I both agree that Judas could not have chosen to not betray Christ, but then this clearly contradicts the idea that God knows all "possible contingencies," for only one proposition could "possibly" be true and it is true by virtue of the fact that God knows it. Knowledge is not some independent source of data from which God selects his revelation. What God knows is knowledge, and therefore, God cannot know what he does not know. Therefore, foreknowledge is not founded on foreseen "possible contingencies" and then a selection of one of those contingencies. It is foreknown precisely because it is decreed.

It is inconsistent and illogical to say that God "chooses" from raw data the events that he reveals in Scripture. It is quite impossible, for God could not know the contingencies prior to ordaining them. This is better illustrated with an example.

Let's say you have a dozen shoes from which you want to pick one to wear. This is the scenario from which you are working when you say God chooses from an infinite number of contingencies. The problem is that this view is myopic. One of the difficulties is that it begs the nature of the contingencies. In our illustration, all dozen pairs of shoes actually exist. In order for God to choose from a number of different contingencies, they would have to all be true. But it cannot simultaneously be true that Judas betrayed Christ and that Judas did not betray Christ. This is a clear contradiction. God cannot know that Judas might have betrayed Christ and might not have. That would mean God has contradictory thoughts.

On the issue of secondary causes, the Confession calls something a secondary cause which is caused not by the direct agency of God, but through an agent. For instance, instead of God speaking directly to Balaam, he spoke through Balaam's donkey (ass, technically, but I'm not sure if CF will filter that or not). This is an example of a secondary cause. The effect was the revelation to Balaam. In the direct sense of the "liberty" or "contingency" of second causes, what is meant is that such is established by the decree of God. The Confession means that secondary causes are at liberty to cause, that is, to be the agent of God causing. It does not mean that we are free to chose whatever we want and that God ordains what we chose on the basis of our choosing it. That would show the Confession to be contradictory because it is explicitly denied in 3:2.

Therefore, I submit that your argument logically concludes in the Confession contradicting itself and advocating a form of Molinism, whereas my argument concludes in the Confession consistently maintaining supralapsarianism and denying the Romish error of Molinism.

Even assuming as you say that the infra position makes God's plan of redemption conditioned upon the fall, it still does not leave them at odds with the Confession since they still hold that the fall itself was also decreed.

Conditionally decreed, which, of course, is the crux of the matter, and what 3:2 expressly denies.

All the major historical Reformed creeds and confessions intentionally do not speak definitively on this issue. Historical Calvinism has allowed for both views, so let's please not manufacture historical evidence where there is none as it only makes this issue that much more difficult to discuss.

I'm sorry, but this is slightly amusing, especially the part about "manufacturing historical evidence." All I did was quote the article and then spell out the logical implication of it. If you want to charge the Westminster Assembly with logical inconsistency you are free to do so. I, on the other hand, maintain that it is a supralapsarian document and have demonstrated the same.

The statement that the historical creeds and confessions are "intentionally neutral" on this issue is an assertion that begs significant evidence.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

would it be possible for those gifted in a knowledge of science (my education is limited) take a look at this thread ...... fresh minds , are you up for it ?


http://www.christianforums.com/t2444266-why-i-think-i-will-never-be-a-calvinist.html&page=27#post20943071

I fired a salvo back at Double D. If he responds, I'll take up his comments, but the rest of the thread just looks like the usual tripe.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Knight]

I had to go with the third option on this one...

Not a subject I've dug into... Nor care to.