Supralapsarianism...the unassailable logic

[moonbeam]

Romans 9:21-23 (NKJV)
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,

At first glance it may seem that the verses above teach that God has purposefully created vessels of wrath for destruction. In other words, vessels of wrath (the reprobate) that are going to be sent to Hell (for destruction) were created by God to demonstrate His own power so that the riches of His glory bestowed on vessels of mercy (the elect) can be made known. This is a favorite view of the supralapsarian.

This supralapsarian view begs a very important question. If God has purposefully created vessels of wrath for destruction, then how do we reconcile this view with the Scriptures clear teaching by our Lord’s own words that Hell was created for the devil and his angels?

Note to the reader - I am coming in cold an will open up the discussion of the top of my head for further refinement.

In response to the first dilemma... the following.

The infralapsarian position affirms (in contradistinction to supra-) that the mass of humanity fallen... is "the same lump"

From that fallen mass, they accept, that a decree of reprobation is lawful... but not before.

Therefore the scope of reprobation (in my opinion) begins with Cain and continues.

Hell... is the point of the final consumption of Gods judgement upon sin and sinners regards both human and angelic individuals.

There is no indication that the phrase "Hell was created for the devil and his angels?" - is not inclusive of human beings.
The scripture tells us that human personalities (agents) are aligned with the devil in a relationship which propagates and accentuates the lusts of the devil.
Therefore they are "angels"- messengers of the Devil.

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41

If the supralapsarian view is correct, why does not our Lord claim that Hell was created for the devil, his angels, and vessels of wrath?

If our Lord was speaking the truth, and of course He was, it simply cannot be that the eternal purpose of God was to purposefully create from a lump of clay that was not already fallen, vessels of wrath.

I response to the second dilemma... the following...

As explained in my previous response... the terms are all inclusive... the objection is sufficiently weakened to be moot.

In addition - it is not an uncommon feature of scripture that on occasions an economy of words is used.

Moreover, the Romans passage speaks of the riches of God’s glory on vessels of mercy. Why is mercy needed if this lump of clay is unfallen? Grace is getting what you don’t deserve; mercy is not getting what you do.

They are vessels of mercy, even in the un-fallen state, for their existence, when actualized in the temporal realm, will have the human species from our progenitors onward born legally guilty and so under condemnation.

Also Adam and Eve are rightly inclusive in that descriptor "vessels of mercy".
God decreed that Adam and Eve would fall... but had also decreed the slaying of the Lamb of God and clothed Adam and Eve in coats of skins.

The objection that the words "vessel of mercy" weaken the supra position is sufficiently weakened by the above considerations as to make it moot.

So we are now faced with two dilemmas from the supralapsarian’s classic view. Their view is that the lump of clay is an unfallen mass of humanity out of which God creates the reprobate and the elect. Hence, God purposefully creates sinful creatures.

No God did not purposely create sinful creatures.

All humanity was in the loins of Adam who was created first.
All humanity was in the loins of Eve who was created second.
Adam and Eve walked with God in the garden.

So it is, at this point, and in this way... that all the human species (in the loins of Adam and Eve) are innocent and un-fallen and in the presence of God, in the garden.
.

 

[moonbeam]

God then is the proximate author (not the antecedent author) of their sin, contrary to Scripture (e.g., James1:13).

As established previously... The entire human race is in the loins of both Adam and Eve when they walk in the garden with God... So the entire human species was in a state of innocence, and in fellowship with God, in Adam and Eve, when they walked in the garden with God.

That means the charge that God creates sinful creatures is negated.

Secondly, God is bestowing mercy on the elect, yet the lump of clay is not yet fallen, so mercy used in Romans 9:23 must mean something very different than we have been taught by Scripture.

And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Personally I do not find it, inappropriate, that the elect are called vessels of mercy, even when in a state of innocence, in the loins of Adam and Eve in the presence of God in the garden.
When you consider what God knows in regards His decrees unfolding... vessels of mercy... is appropriate... at anytime.
.

 

[David Lamb]

As established previously... The entire human race is in the loins of both Adam and Eve when they walk in the garden with God... So the entire human species was in a state of innocence, and in fellowship with God, in Adam and Eve, when they walked in the garden with God.

That means the charge that God creates sinful creatures is negated.
.

It's surely far more straightforward than that, for Genesis tells us:

“Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (Ge 1:31 NKJV)

So that negates any charge of God creating sinful creatures.

 

[moonbeam]

Could it perhaps be the case that Romans 9:21-23 teaches us that God has the right of how to choose to disposition creatures who are sinners? That is, the lump of clay God is working with is a fallen mass of humanity. God is desiring to demonstrate both His mercy and His wrath, for both are attributes of God. That is His right and Paul questions anyone who would dare ask God about His rights as sovereign. The verses teach us one of the reasons God has allowed sin: to display His wrath, for without sin there is no wrath, without wrath there is no revelation of the fullness of the glory of God.

The right that God has, to create creatures, and to dispose of them, as His purpose so determines, remains intrinsic regardless of any criteria.

To suggest that God posses a right over sinful creatures, but no right over sinless creatures, is without any logical basis... and absurd.

God can never be severed of His right... to determine anything... and the exercise of that right... is necessarily righteous.

God puts Himself on display in the Scriptures, allowing and enduring sin, to reveal not only His lovingkindness but also His holy wrath in judgment and punishment. This is required for God to be fully revealed of God. God could not possess the attribute of wrath if this attribute had no function.

The verses also teach us that God allows and endures sin: to demonstrate His power to judge sin and to conquer all attempts to conquer Him (through salvation, the victory of Christ).

Let’s look closer at Romans 9:22-23. In Romans 9:22, in the phrase vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," the word prepared (katartizo) is in the passive voice, which would indicate that their preparation was not active, but passive. Note here that the agent who prepared them is not named. It is passive. Naturally, this agent must be God from the context, but it is not that God made them sinners. Instead it is that they are sinners and God is displaying His holy wrath by fitting them for destruction. God here is not pre-ordaining the destruction of these vessels from the passive context in the Greek. This view also aligns perfectly with the Westminster Confession on this aspect:

That the eternal decrees of God, included the fall of Adam, is not in dispute... the result of that decree resulted in the universal condemnation of the human species including Adam and Eve... the fact that the passive voice is used is merely a reflection upon that universal reality and the propensity to sin it entails.

• WCF, Chapter III
  Of God's Eternal Decree
  
  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.
  
  V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.
  
  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.

Carefully note the distinctions between predestination and foreordaining. Predestination is an active act of God whereby He purposefully chooses some to election. Foreordination is an act of God from eternity determining the certain future existence of all events of every type that will come to pass. Foreknowledge recognizes the certain future existence of events, while foreordination makes them certainly future. Note from the WCF, the passive passing by (yet active in the sense of so willing the same) of the reprobate.

That predestination is presented as a positive act of God, is warranted in that the elect children of God are the purpose of the substitutionary death of Christ.

But it ought to be understood, that for God "to pass by" is as equally determinative.

Foreordination shares an equivalence with predestination... in that the outcome in either case is equally certain.
.

 

[moonbeam]

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.

AMR's post is gracious in laying out the opposing view and a very solid presentation of his considerations of the supporting evidence for infra.

I think he is correct in that a pivotal issue revolves around love or grace.

I believe the election of the elect is/was an act of love... "God is love"... followed by the fall in Adam... from this position all the scripture references that the infra expounds on, are necessarily accepted, as incorporating the supra perspective, in that, they speak to a fallen humanity, after walking with God in right relationship in the garden in Adam and Eve.
.

 

[moonbeam]

It's surely far more straightforward than that, for Genesis tells us:

“Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (Ge 1:31 NKJV)

So that negates any charge of God creating sinful creatures.

That is a strong opening stance and one I am not at odds with.

I had a friend who would say this - "The reason Adam sinned was because he was a sinner"

A bit of an odd statement but what do you think?
.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Well, having just stumbled upon this thread; (and now having a crash course in what Supralapsarianism is): I'm going to take a crack at this from a different angle.

I'm familiar with the passages mentioned:
Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
The elect are elect from the foundations of the world.
And vessels of mercy, as well as vessels of wrath come from the same lump of clay.

Plus.... the notion of "double predestination" commonly being kicked around; though I do not conclude double predestinate as a Biblical doctrine. And I don't conclude it so because of the verse that says "the wages of sin...."; thus here goes my crack at answering this:

The wages of sin:
The unregenerate sinner has earned a "wage" for their sin. And this "wage" is predicated upon both the sinner's sin which is the violation of God's law written on their conscience. All of humanity has a conscience. That reality is par and parcel to being created in the image of God. The conscience is a "witness"; and the creation is a "second witness". (The "third witness" is Scripture.) "Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let all things be established." And because the revelation given in Scripture can be seen in the creation; thus "they are without excuse". But on the positive side of that; no one has ever been "left without a witness" either.

And I'm sure we all agree here too, that the fall affected all of us; and because the fall affected all of us, we will and do commit sin. Thus we are all guilty of sin.

Now the "lump of clay" reference:
One is made a "vessel of mercy" and the other (essentially left) as a "vessel of wrath". But before the fall actually happened in time; this passage had no application. Interestingly, even before being given a command to follow; Adam and Eve were still capable of doing things that potentially displeased God; but until having been given a command; they weren't accountable to any sin they may have committed. Thus upon completing creation; God said that it was "good". Meaning it pleased Him; He was satisfied with what He'd created. The word "good" here in Genesis, is akin to the word "pleasure". (to be pleasing). It's generally conveyed in the context of something (or someone) being "beautiful to look at".

So consequently, until the fall actually happened and set into motion the necessity of "one lump (to be made) unto mercy"; that verse in Romans can not addressing God's intent (the accusation of creating something that was inherently corrupted from the onset) in His omniscience of knowing that the fall was inevitable.

Now why was the fall inevitable?
I think the answer to that question lies in the temporal nature of the creation. Adam was "created in the image of God". He was not God incarnate. God is not corruptible by the knowledge of good and evil; simply by nature of the entity that God is. He's omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal and having no beginning and no end. Simply by the nature of His Being; God is not corruptible from possessing the knowledge of good and evil. And because Adam and Eve were not God incarnate; the temporal nature of their existence subjected them to corruption.

And part of the "knowledge of good and evil" that God possesses; means that He knew the fall would inevitably happen. (Also par and parcel to being omniscient.) It was unavoidable based on the temporal nature that creation was initially established in.

Now, Jesus the lamb slain from the foundation of the world:
Here's where the question gets interesting. Assuming by the context of this statement, that the atonement was actually completed from the point the creation itself was initiated. And given the Entity that God is; we understand that He was capable of securing the atonement "in eternity" before doing so "in time". I know that's hard for us to wrap our brains around, because the only reference we know is to living in time. That is the only point of reference we can have because we are not eternal. We certainly have the capacity to recognize the concept of being outside of time; but because we all have a beginning; it's difficult for us to understand the atonement being cohesive to both eternity and time. Though we recognize God possessing the ability to operate within both.

Obviously before God created anything; He had a plan "thought out".

So, now back to "vessel of mercy" in juxtaposition to "vessel of wrath":
This I see as more a judicial issue of how we are made accountable for our sin. The transgression of the law is a totally different "system" from God's action of providing atonement. (The distinct difference between the law and grace.) And this is why sin has a "wage" attached to it. The "wage" earned is the punishment for the commission of the sin. And that punishment is enacted upon, based on the decision of the sinner, as to what extent they decide to act upon the sin in their heart.

This is why Scripture says the servant who didn't know the master's will and didn't obey, will be beaten with few stripes; while the servant who did know the master's will and still did not obey, will be beaten with many stripes. The degree of punishment is based on the sin. A mass murderer will indeed receive greater condemnation than someone who swiped a pen from their employer. Not all sin receives the same punishment. The punishment "fits the crime". And this is why that is a concept also in human jurisprudence.

And because the conscience given is a reflection of the moral holiness of God; the law is not of an arbitrary whim of the law giver. Because God is constant, the law does not change and this is why the requirement is that one keep the whole law as the demonstration of their righteousness. (Which of course, may we all understand that our righteousness will never measure up to God's holiness.) That is a task we can not accomplish, because of the temporal nature of our existence. (I.E. we are not God.) Which is why pride ultimately is the downfall that leads to the punishment of the sinner. And the probable reason Scripture states hell was created for Satan and his fallen minions.

Though the irony here, is that apparently the fall affected the disobedient angels differently than it affected man. Because of Jesus's description of Satan. "a liar and murderer from the beginning; for there is no truth in him" we can conclude the likelihood that fallen angels totally lose the capacity for moral good once they transgress. And that is likely due to the fact that they are not created in God's image. Personally I believe the fall of Lucifer came shortly after the creation of Adam; and I believe the impetus of Lucifer's pride is that he saw himself as being superior to Adam. And that likely has connection to angels not having carbon based material bodies. Thus they do not have the capacity to reproduce. They were not given that capacity because they are not part of the salvation plan. There is no salvation for fallen angels. As Scripture describes that Christ did not take on the nature of angels.

Conclusion:
So.... God possessing "from the foundation of the world" the knowledge that there would be "vessels of wrath"; does not mean that He is the one culpable for their decisions that brought about the fall; though God did not choose to create a cosmos that would have made the fall impossible. (He could have done that too; and maybe on some other "plane" of existence He has?)

Now why did God create the universe the way that He did?
I recently had a discussion on this question with one of my son's friends. And the conclusion I came too; was that the design of the current cosmos (with it's capacity to become corrupted) "works together for the good" of God's elect. For out of the human desire to "know good and evil" (which is what cause the fall of the material world) we would not have understood the redemption plan. We wouldn't have seen the purpose for it, because we would not have known the difference between good and evil. And the "good" here is the redemption plan; because the atonement IS the demonstration of "God is love".

---

Post Script:

Now what was the origin of evil that caused the fall to happen in the first place?
That is a wholly other question; which I do have a theory on, but will not be discussed in this thread. It does have its own thread; which if anyone is interested in reading; that thread can be found here:

Theory on the origin of evil

Origins of Evil Theory I've often wondered about the origins of evil? Many church fathers and people in Christian circles believe that evil began with Satan. This may be true, depending on your definition of "Satan"; but if we look closely at the first few verses of Genesis, we'll see that this...

www.christianforums.com