The fallen lump of clay is per the decree of the fall of Adam as understood by the infra view. Hence it is a fallen lump to be molded by God as He sees fit to do. At judgment, the reprobate are consigned to eternal punishment (not "destroyed" as annihilationism would claim).
The infra vs. supra views should not be a divisive issue for the Reformed.
I don't know how to reconcile them. I think it begins by recognizing we are trying to get inside God's mind perhaps more than what he has revealed to us in Scripture. OR...that we have not yet properly divided the Word. Both views cannot be right at the same time and in the same sense unless we want to violate the law of contradiction.
For me there must be balance between God's sovereignty and his justice. God elected because he is sovereign. Was that act an act of grace or an act of love? I believe the act of election to salvation was an act of grace (bestowing favor upon those that do not merit favor). I presuppose that the Fall of mankind also reveals God's attributes properly working in conjunction with one another. Therefore if the lump of clay is an unfallen mass of humanity out of which God equally elects and reprobates then his election is an election primarily of love, not grace. God's subjective grace presupposes the objects of that grace do not merit his gracious act. Yet if these objects are an unfallen mass of humanity, wherein is their guilt that would warrant God's grace? Moreover, how does God’s justice appear to be balanced with his sovereignty in this case?
I am going to ramble a bit now, thinking aloud, if you will, to explore my thinking.
The crux of the issue in my mind comes down to the distinction between grace and love. having said that, I believe God's attributes are qualities that inhere in the being of God. In other words, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. Indeed, God's attributes are identical with his essence.
So when we are discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, gracious, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other. When we consider the simplicity of God (that He is without constituent parts), we find that God and His attributes are a unified wholeness. God’s attributes are not so many parts that comprise the composition of God, as God is not composed of different parts (as are His creatures). Nor can God’s attributes be thought as something that is added to God’s being, for God is eternally perfect.
When the Scriptures say God is gracious, it means that graciousness is an aspect of God’s being, God seen from a particular aspect/perspective—all of God in that aspect/perspective—and so on for every Scriptural statement about God. Thus, when the Scriptures say that God is gracious it means all of God—God in every respect—is gracious. As another example, when speaking of the powers of God we must understand that power is not about choices per se, power is about ability, capacity, authority, and right.
So perhaps the solution is to realize that while election out of an unfallen mass of humanity (the supra position) is an election of love, that attribute of love cannot be separated from God's attribute of grace, thus the election is also one of grace, which the Scripture clearly states, i.e., by grace we are saved.
1. Can I then assert that every loving act of God is also a gracious act of God?
2. Likewise, is every gracious act of God also a loving act of God?
I am nearly convinced by my own words until I come to the logical conclusion of such a position—that God not only positively elects, but that he also positively reprobates with the same ultimate ends (equal ultimacy). In effect I am adopting a position that God does not pass over the guilty, which he would if the lump of clay was already fallen, but that God is now going out of his way, so to speak, to positively reprobate persons that are not yet fallen, who now must irrevocably so fall, per God's decree. Now I can accept that God, as Sovereign can do what he pleases to do and that whatever he does is not in conflict with his being, his attributes. But, in this view, I must be able to reconcile the actions of God with his teachings from Scripture, else I am attaching myself to very different gospel. May it never be!
So here is where I bump up against John 15:19, “If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world--therefore the world hates you.”.
The world in this verse is clearly a world described by Jesus in the immediately preceding verse as a world that hates God: "If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you..
I see this as a strong indicator that the lump of clay God was working with was already fallen. I realize that the word world is used in many ways in the Scripture, and it is the subject of much study by the Reformed, especially when we consider verses like John 3:16 with respect to limited atonement.
Now the Reformed have a biblical answer to the word, world in John 3:16. Firstly, the Greek is clear that whosoever believeth means everyone who believes, pas ho pisteuon, a very specific group of believers. I believe the NRSV renders the verse correctly: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. NRSV
We see this even more clearly in John 3:18: Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. NRSV
Thus it seems clear to me that God did not intend to make salvation available for everyone, but instead to save only the believers. Hence the foundation for limited atonement is established.
At a first reading, the word world in John 3:16 might be interpreted to mean all persons, so that God’s intended to save every person, or perhaps make salvation at least possible for every person. For me and the Reformed this view reads too much explicitness into the verse. Its plain reading is that Christ came to save the world. For some to say that the verse teaches that God was making salvation possible is to read far more into the text than we have warrant to do, especially given the numerous passages that teach the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement to justify the elect before God.
Which brings us to the word, world, kosmos, or order, regular disposition and arrangement, i.e., the entire order of things, the planet. If we look at the word metaphorically, we could see how it could be intended to mean all the world’s population. But, careful examination of John 3, verses 16, 17, and 19 shows that this metaphorical interpretation cannot be applied. In John 3:17, we read:
"Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
And in John 3:19: And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.
Both verses do not refer to the world’s population, but to the planetary realm where people exist.
Could John be using, in John 3:16, 17, 19, two very different meanings of world in the same context? If we look at John 1:10, he clearly does so: He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. I maintain that no proper methods of interpretation can justify that the verses in question in John 3 support the view that he is employing two very different meanings of the word, world. The kosmos in these passages of John cannot mean the population of the world, or every person.
What do I conclude, then, based upon the immediate explorations above? First, that the world means creation, the world order of things. God intended to provide redemption for his creation. His intent was to do this using the remnant, the elect, as taught in
Ephesians 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Colossians 1:13 He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Colossians 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Colossians 1:16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers--all things have been created through him and for him.
Colossians 1:17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Colossians 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything.
Colossians 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Colossians 1:20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.
Romans 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God;
Romans 8:20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
Romans 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; (NRSV)
Returning to John 1:10, I believe that the meaning in the entire passage, John 1:1-18, is referring to the orbit of Genesis 1, and teaches that Jesus Christ was sent to renew all of God’s creation—what the Fall had corrupted—not just mankind, but the entire creation of God. Furthermore, I am confident of this interpretation given the language of John 3, e.g., light, world, darkness, as it echoes Genesis 1 and therefore does not refer just to mankind.
I and the Reformers before me conclude from this that nothing in John 3 is not teaching a general redemption, a ransom for all persons, but a limited atonement.
And finally (whew!) I conclude that John 15:18-19 speaks of a fallen creation, not one that is not yet fallen, as the supra position would hold, with respect to the lump of clay God is electing out of in his grace.