Supra vs Infra

[JimfromOhio]

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

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

I have decided to go with the third option too. I looked into this and I discovered this is not really a major issue for me. I will study further but I am not going to make any conclusions anytime soon.

 

[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/t244...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

thanks Jon , I notice that when someone meets DD on his own ground (understands where he is coming from ) he disappears

 

[Jon_]

thanks Jon , I notice that when someone meets DD on his own ground (understands where he is coming from ) he disappears

Indeed, he does. It's too bad too because he suffers from a strongly secular worldview. He really thinks that science provides him with truth about reality. He's fallen into scientism, the idolatry of the age. The following passage addresses the matter quite succinctly. Just mentally replace "wisdom" with "science."

(1 Corinthians 1:18-25 KJV) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

​

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[ReformedAnglican]

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.

Why did God allow the Fall?

 

[frumanchu]

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.

That would be much appreciated.

I don't have time to respond to your last post in full at present; specifically that part regarding "possible contingencies." I wasn't clear enough on what I meant by that, and the result was that your reply to it isn't really applicable. I'll elaborate when I have time (I have to head back to the new house after dinner to continue work on the hardwood floors ).

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Many years ago, I was reading a theologian who made the point that in all His attributes, God is infinite; and that though we will never grasp the breadth of His infinite perfections, we can grasp the thought that any doctrinal view which portrays Him as less than another doctrinal view is necessarily in error because infinite perfection is never excelled.

When we consider the supralapsarian/infralapsarian issue in that light, while realizing at the same time the place the covenants have in manifesting His glory, doesn't it make us realize that the supralapsarian view must be more proper doctrine? Who can doubt that especially concerning this doctrine, the sovereignty of God is most clearly displayed?

P.S.: I believe I read that in Charnock's Existence and Attributes of God.

 

[Jon_]

Many years ago, I was reading a theologian who made the point that in all His attributes, God is infinite; and that though we will never grasp the breadth of His infinite perfections, we can grasp the thought that any doctrinal view which portrays Him as less than another doctrinal view is necessarily in error because infinite perfection is never excelled.

When we consider the supralapsarian/infralapsarian issue in that light, while realizing at the same time the place the covenants have in manifesting His glory, doesn't it make us realize that the supralapsarian view must be more proper doctrine? Who can doubt that especially concerning this doctrine, the sovereignty of God is most clearly displayed?

P.S.: I believe I read that in Charnock's Existence and Attributes of God.

That you cite Charnock as your source really makes me want to find the passage (since I love Charnock); but at the same time, the thought of trying to skim all 1000+ pages of the Existence and Attributes is really forebidding. Maybe I'll keep it in mind and wait to write down the source when I reach that point in the book.

Oi, I tell ya, I love Charnock and the Puritans, but why did they have to use such tedious language? I love Warfield and Hodge too, but man, reading their volumes is just so laborious. Why couldn't they put things more concisely?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Rolf Ernst]

That you cite Charnock as your source really makes me want to find the passage (since I love Charnock); but at the same time, the thought of trying to skim all 1000+ pages of the Existence and Attributes is really forebidding. Maybe I'll keep it in mind and wait to write down the source when I reach that point in the book.

Oi, I tell ya, I love Charnock and the Puritans, but why did they have to use such tedious language? I love Warfield and Hodge too, but man, reading their volumes is just so laborious. Why couldn't they put things more concisely?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Sorry, Jon. I have looked for it, but have not found it. Perhaps I read it elsewhere. Wherever it was, it was much more clearly stated than I was able to repeat. I am 69 and there are so many resources that too often when I try to credit someone, I do no one any favor. But I may recall the source more fully later. I'll keep it in mind, hoping to find it. It was so much more clearly an apparent truth the way the original author expressed it that it is worth anyone reading it.

 

[McWilliams]

Why did God allow the Fall?

The whole purpose of God is to bring glory to His great name!

For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. Rom11:36

(note from MacArthur Study bible says:Though not the author of sin(Ps.5:4, Hab.1:13, James 1:13) God allowed man to pursue his sinful inclinations so that He could receive glory by demonstrating His grace and mercy to disobedient sinners. (Eph.2:2; 5:6)

 

[ReformedAnglican]

The whole purpose of God is to bring glory to His great name!

Agreed, the point is however that God had a plan in decreeing the fall. My position is that the fall was decreed to place all in sin so God could elect and reprobate hence God decree to reprobate and elect must be logically prior to the fall, i.e. supralapsarianism.

 

[Jon_]

Agreed, the point is however that God had a plan in decreeing the fall. My position is that the fall was decreed to place all in sin so God could elect and reprobate hence God decree to reprobate and elect must be logically prior to the fall, i.e. supralapsarianism.

This is supported "in essence" by Romans 3:21, which says "the law entered that the sin might abound, for where sin abounded, grace abounded much more." It is not necessarily valid to infer that the fall carried such an intention only from this verse, but the theme is strikingly similar. (That is, sin entered that God might show grace. In fact, Covenant Theology almost demands a supralapsarian view of the decree.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[calmcoolandelected]

Gosh, I remember looking these up one time but I don't remember what they mean! Off to research!


CC&E

 

[ReformedAnglican]

Gosh, I remember looking these up one time but I don't remember what they mean! Off to research!


CC&E

LOL

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Agreed, the point is however that God had a plan in decreeing the fall. My position is that the fall was decreed to place all in sin so God could elect and reprobate hence God decree to reprobate and elect must be logically prior to the fall, i.e. supralapsarianism.

Bravo!! Well said, Reformed Anglican. Keep up the good work in our Lord's vineyard.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Too bad, isn't it? When skeptics read that the LORD looked upon all that He had made and behold, it was very good, they immediately begin assuming that they, according to their own purpose and judgement are the ones to determine exactly what "very good" is rather than God who has His own purpose in His work of creation.

 

[R.J.S]

I am a supralapsarian

 

[mlqurgw]

How does this kind of thing edify the body of Christ? What does it mean to the person sitting in the pew?

 

[inchristalone221]

How does this kind of thing edify the body of Christ? What does it mean to the person sitting in the pew?

Any learning about the nature of God and theology is edifying.

 

[Jon_]

How does this kind of thing edify the body of Christ? What does it mean to the person sitting in the pew?

To me, the pastoral concern of the logical order of the decree is the testimony of the sovereign plan of God to glorify himself through the redemption of mankind.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[lmnop9876]

a question. how, if God decreed the fall, did Adam really have free-will? if God had decreed that it would happen, then Adam had no choice in the matter.