Are you infra or supra and why?

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by OS_X
I'm neither. I'm translapsarian. I believe the Bible presents an equal case for both and that somewhere near the throne of God in eternity, they even out. I'll never have an infra vs supra debate because in one way, BOTH are right and we shouldn't break it down to a false 'this or that' dichotomy.

(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.

The logical order of the decrees according to translapsarians is:
Deut. 29:29

Kerry,

When you are talking to an unbeliever and he asks how God can arbitrarily send some to hell, what do you answer?

 

[RickyReformed]

Curt Daniel, in his History of Calvinism series states that Van Til was a supralapsarian; and I heard John Gerstner on tape say he was an infralapsarian.

Does this sound weird to anyone else? Didn't Gerstner write the intro to Englesma's _Hyper-calvinism and the Call of the Gospel_?

Curt Daniel lecture titled "High Calvinism"
http://www.sermonaudio.com/play.asp?ID=83004123519

Phillip R. Johnson on Infra vs Supra:
http://www.fivesolas.com/sup_infr.htm

Also, can we all please repeat this mantra from Curt Daniel's "Hyper-Calvinism" lecture:
"All hypers are supra; not all supra's are hyper."
http://www.sermonaudio.com/play.asp?ID=83004124627


+1 Supra

[Edited on 25-11-2004 by RickyReformed]

 

[RickyReformed]

Oops, forgot to answer the "and why?" part:

http://www.rmiweb.org/books/theology2003.pdf
Page 102 , paragraph starting with, "As for the purpose of man's creation..." to page 104, ending with "'The LORD works everything for his own ends - even the wicked for a day of disaster. (Proverbs 16:4)"

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The LORD elected some for salvation and others for damnation before the foundation of the world BEFORE the fall and creation because God is outside of time. This is not a temporal issue, just like predestination and providence are largely not temporally related. It is not "confusing" or "wrong" to say that God accomplished election before the Fall took place because God is not inside our understanding of time.

 

[Average Joey]

Originally posted by


I believe the purpose of glorifying the Son is the reason for creation. Therefore it precedes it in the election of those who will be recipients of the redemption, before the creation of those recipients.

But seriously, I will not get too dogmatic over this issue. I still say all these decisions are simultaneous within the mind of God. There really probably is no linear progression at all.

May God forgive me for even speculating about the holy mysteries of His eternal wisdom and knowlegde.

Awesome post.I also speculate that the creation of man had to do with glorifying the Son.Of course who is to know for sure.It is something that I have thought about for a long time.May God forgive me also for speculating.Especially,coming from an uneducated fool such as I.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The LORD elected some for salvation and others for damnation before the foundation of the world BEFORE the fall and creation because God is outside of time. This is not a temporal issue, just like predestination and providence are largely not temporally related. It is not "confusing" or "wrong" to say that God accomplished election before the Fall took place because God is not inside our understanding of time.

Gabriel,

As far as I know, no one ever said this was about "time" since th decrees do not admit of time. Even the supra does not say that the decree to elect happens in time before others.

Having said that, would you care to try and answer my question above?

 

[Average Joey]

My guess is what man meant for evil God meant for good.Man fell but God in his infinite soverignity not only forgave man through Christ.I believe also that He bought us as his children by making us fellow heirs with His Son Jesus Christ.That is something that was not happening in the garden.I don`t know about you guys but the end of Revelation sounds much much better then the garden of Eden.I hope I am not walking on dangerous ground.Please rebuke me if so.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Fred asked|: "When you are talking to an unbeliever and he asks how God can arbitrarily send some to hell, what do you answer?"

All people are going to hell for sinning, so it couldn't be arbitrary. They violated objective law.

God chose to have mercy on some and this acording to his free will and good pleasure.

Would others agree with this statement? No catch here - For what it's worth I think it is accurate.

[Edited on 11/27/2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Paul manata
Fred asked|: "When you are talking to an unbeliever and he asks how God can arbitrarily send some to hell, what do you answer?"

All people are going to hell for sinning, so it couldn't be arbitrary. They violated objective law.

God chose to have mercy on some and this acording to his free will and good pleasure.

Would others agree with this statement? No catch here - For what it's worth I think it is accurate.

[Edited on 11/27/2004 by fredtgreco]

I agree with it!

Fred, the infra/supra issue along with things like active/passive reprobation are things I wont touch with a ten-foot-pole. I find elements of both and I think they belong in the category of: "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts and my ways higher than your ways."

I hate to tell you Paul (but I will, since we are on the same page --> go % !!) that a supra can't agree with it.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

In addition to the answer already given above (that all people already go to hell or are on their way there because of sin), somewhere, some way, somehow, they are still responsible for their behavior and I would take them to scripture (i.e. - that King God uses to punish Israel in Isaiah, the folks mentioned in 2 Thess and Rom. 1 and even Pharoah in Romans 9/Exodus). While I do not profess to know every jot and tittle of scripture, I do know that God is just and righteous in all of His ways and that somewhere along the way, a full and satisfying explanation exists.

In the meantime, you're responsible for YOU. So this day, the question is before you - Whom will YOU serve ?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Well it's because they hold to a strictly quantitiative view of God's vs. uur knowledge instead of a quantatative *and* qualatative difference. Probably would have sided with Clark in the infamous Clark-Van Til controversy.

Simpler than that:

in the supra scheme men are decreed to hell before sin and the fall is contemplated. That is the definition of supralapsarianism. So for the supra, he cannot say that men go to hell because of sin. Men go to hell to glorify God. That is a position that is tenable Biblically, but my guess is that only a tiny, tiny minority of folks would actually use that in talking with unbelievers.

 

[cupotea]

If I had to choose, I would be infra, solely because Jonathan Edwards was. But if I was honest, I would say I hold a Framian view. Frame says that such a debate is an attempt to read God's mind and His intention, which we are not privy to. Plus, the Bible is not clear on the subject.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Paul manata
Well it's because they hold to a strictly quantitiative view of God's vs. uur knowledge instead of a quantatative *and* qualatative difference. Probably would have sided with Clark in the infamous Clark-Van Til controversy.

Simpler than that:

in the supra scheme men are decreed to hell before sin and the fall is contemplated. That is the definition of supralapsarianism. So for the supra, he cannot say that men go to hell because of sin. Men go to hell to glorify God. That is a position that is tenable Biblically, but my guess is that only a tiny, tiny minority of folks would actually use that in talking with unbelievers.

As I said above: I find elements of both and therefore will not dogmatically assert either.

Fred, what is your view on what Bruce wrote via Raymond?

I would pose that Reymond is making an huge extra-Biblical assumption in saying:

With salvation, Reymond begins with this goal: God intends to glorify himself maximally by the election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ.

We have no evidence that God would not be maximally glorified by the creation and sustaining of Adam in his original state. In fact, I could argue that Reymond's position makes God dependent on man - without man to redeem, God does not reach His maximum glory.

And Reymond still has no answer for my original query regarding evangelism. It is my contention that the Confession is implicitly infra. (By the way, that is Derek Thomas' position as well)

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by OS_X
I'm neither. I'm translapsarian. I believe the Bible presents an equal case for both and that somewhere near the throne of God in eternity, they even out. I'll never have an infra vs supra debate because in one way, BOTH are right and we shouldn't break it down to a false 'this or that' dichotomy.

(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.

The logical order of the decrees according to translapsarians is:
Deut. 29:29

Kerry,

When you are talking to an unbeliever and he asks how God can arbitrarily send some to hell, what do you answer?

I would ask on what foundation is the claim that God is doing something arbitrary based?

 

[Me Died Blue]

If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?

BINGO!!

If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?

BINGO!!

If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.

I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?

BINGO!!

If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.

I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?

It means that it would follow that God's condemning of people to hell is arbitrary. It is not based on His justice, since those condemned are condemned apart from sin, or reference to God's holiness. In fact, they are not even condemned as individuals, since God has not even contemplated them as created men.

I come back to my point regarding evangelism: what do you say when someone says, I can't understand why God would send anyone to hell ?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?

BINGO!!

If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.

I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?

Infra: God decreed humanity's Fall into sin, then decreed some people to save from it (and bring to Heaven) and others to punish because of it (and send to hell).

Supra: God decreed to bring some people to Heaven and send others to hell, and after that decreed humanity's fall into sin.

So my objection to the supra view is that it asserts that death was decreed before sin was decreed, whereas Scripture lists death as the wages of sin, and thus an ontological result of sin, which is impossible if it was decreed before sin was decreed.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?

BINGO!!

If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.

I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?

It means that it would follow that God's condemning of people to hell is arbitrary. It is not based on His justice, since those condemned are condemned apart from sin, or reference to God's holiness. In fact, they are not even condemned as individuals, since God has not even contemplated them as created men.

I come back to my point regarding evangelism: what do you say when someone says, I can't understand why God would send anyone to hell ?

Ill do this in reverse order.

God created both the elect and the reprobates for his own
glory. Although the reprobates do not consciously glorify God, he gains glory for himself through them, so that he is glorified by the elect in their salvation and by the reprobates in their destruction. (Verses can be supplied if requested)

Next, the argument for God being arbitrary is an argument from silence. "God does not give us certain information therefore he must be arbitrary in his actions at this point". That doesnt fly.

Also I do not see how infra's can dodge this type of question, unless they say that either God did not decree the fall/sin etc (it just happened) or He had no choice but to decree the fall.

The question just becomes. I dont know why God would create evil/why God would decree the fall etc.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Infra: God decreed humanity's Fall into sin, then decreed some people to save from it (and bring to Heaven) and others to punish because of it (and send to hell).

Supra: God decreed to bring some people to Heaven and send others to hell, and after that decreed humanity's fall into sin.

So my objection to the supra view is that it asserts that death was decreed before sin was decreed, whereas Scripture lists death as the wages of sin, and thus an ontological result of sin, which is impossible if it was decreed before sin was decreed.

Could you clarify what you mean by ontological?

CT

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?

BINGO!!

If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.

I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?

It means that it would follow that God's condemning of people to hell is arbitrary. It is not based on His justice, since those condemned are condemned apart from sin, or reference to God's holiness. In fact, they are not even condemned as individuals, since God has not even contemplated them as created men.

I come back to my point regarding evangelism: what do you say when someone says, I can't understand why God would send anyone to hell ?

Ill do this in reverse order.

God created both the elect and the reprobates for his own
glory. Although the reprobates do not consciously glorify God, he gains glory for himself through them, so that he is glorified by the elect in their salvation and by the reprobates in their destruction. (Verses can be supplied if requested)

Next, the argument for God being arbitrary is an argument from silence. "God does not give us certain information therefore he must be arbitrary in his actions at this point". That doesnt fly.

Also I do not see how infra's can dodge this type of question, unless they say that either God did not decree the fall/sin etc (it just happened) or He had no choice but to decree the fall.

The question just becomes. I dont know why God would create evil/why God would decree the fall etc.

CT

The question is not whether God is arbitrary per se. The question is whether God condemns a man to sin in contemplation of the man qua man, and in light of his desert for his sin, or whether he condemns man in abstracto, apart from any demerit at all.

It is perfectly within God's right to do what He wants with His creation - should He determine in his wisdom to permit the Fall and get glory by redeeming some out of the Fall, that is fine. the problem is that the supra cannot say to an unbeliever (or anyone really) that God sends men to hell for their sin. He does not in their scheme. The supra can only say that God condemns men to hell for His own good pleasure, which we cannot know, and that it is completely apart from sin.

The obvious problem with that is that it makes the law and evangelism tenuous at best. That is why earlier in this thread it was correctly stated: "not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists, but all hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians."

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Infra: God decreed humanity's Fall into sin, then decreed some people to save from it (and bring to Heaven) and others to punish because of it (and send to hell).

Supra: God decreed to bring some people to Heaven and send others to hell, and after that decreed humanity's fall into sin.

So my objection to the supra view is that it asserts that death was decreed before sin was decreed, whereas Scripture lists death as the wages of sin, and thus an ontological result of sin, which is impossible if it was decreed before sin was decreed.

Could you clarify what you mean by ontological?

CT

I just used that word to convey that, according to the supra view, reprobation was decreed "before" the Fall was in a logical sense, even though God is outside of time and they were thus done simultaneously by our concept of time. The point I was making is just as well made without that word inserted, in the way Paul rightly noted above.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
The question is not whether God is arbitrary per se. The question is whether God condemns a man to sin in contemplation of the man qua man, and in light of his desert for his sin, or whether he condemns man in abstracto, apart from any demerit at all.

But does not the infra have to deal with the same charge of arbitrary when God chooses one man to go to hell for his sin and the other one to be one of the elect apart from any merit of one over the other?

It is perfectly within God's right to do what He wants with His creation - should He determine in his wisdom to permit the Fall and get glory by redeeming some out of the Fall, that is fine. the problem is that the supra cannot say to an unbeliever (or anyone really) that God sends men to hell for their sin. He does not in their scheme. The supra can only say that God condemns men to hell for His own good pleasure, which we cannot know, and that it is completely apart from sin.

Okay and when are unbeliever asks why God decreed the fall in the first place (so that there will be elect and non-elect), wont you just have to say according to his good pleasure

The obvious problem with that is that it makes the law and evangelism tenuous at best. That is why earlier in this thread it was correctly stated: "not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists, but all hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians."

Why are they tenuous? God decreed to us that we should do various things here on earth. I am really not following why you would consider them tenous?

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?

BINGO!!

If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.

I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?

Because it contradicted Rom. 6:23 would be my guess.

Why is there ar contradiction?

CT

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
If eternal spiritual death was assigned to some before sin was ever decreed, in what sense can that death be called the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)?

BINGO!!

If the supralapsarian position is correct, then God decreed men to go to hell completely apart from sin. They go to hell not because of their sin, but because God decided (apart from any merit or demerit) to send them there. Sin then becomes the means or vehicle to send men to hell. Remember, in the supra case, the decree to elect and reprobate has no grounding in sin at all - it is SUPRA (before) the Fall.

I guess I am not understanding how this is a gotcha? It seems to naturally follow from the Supra position. Could someone explain?

Because it contradicted Rom. 6:23 would be my guess.

Why is there ar contradiction?

CT

I have repeatedly explained it very concisely and simply, and you have never once attempted to answer or even acknowledge it, so I will say it again: The supra view asserts that the decree of death precedes the decree of sin, whereas Romans 6:23 makes clear that death is the wages of sin, and thus a result of sin.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by fredtgreco
The question is not whether God is arbitrary per se. The question is whether God condemns a man to sin in contemplation of the man qua man, and in light of his desert for his sin, or whether he condemns man in abstracto, apart from any demerit at all.

But does not the infra have to deal with the same charge of arbitrary when God chooses one man to go to hell for his sin and the other one to be one of the elect apart from any merit of one over the other?

No, because men go to hell for their sin. The fact that God shows His mercy does not require Him to be merciful to all. If the infra has a problem it is to show why God is merciful to some. The supra has to explain why God condemns men apart from the concept of sin. Remember that the Fall is a decree of permission. God is not the author of sin. Even if we grant that God is somehow responsible for the Fall by decreeing it, the responsibility for sin still lies with Adam. For the supra, the Fall and sin are simply means to permit God to condemn men.

Okay and when are unbeliever asks why God decreed the fall in the first place (so that there will be elect and non-elect), wont you just have to say according to his good pleasure

Yes, and we can also say that the very fact that God entered into covenant with Adam was gracious. God had no responsibility to promise Adam life for obedience, or to even tell him the explicit command. This was a gracious condescension on His part (WCF 7.1). But at least God is dealing with actual people and actual sin when He justly condemns them. Again, I am not really concerned with the sense of God's sovereignty. I am happy to give that to the unbeliever and he may reject it. What the supra cannot give the unbeliever is a sense of God's justice. The reprobate are condemned, ultimately, not for what they have done (sin) but at God's good pleasure.

The obvious problem with that is that it makes the law and evangelism tenuous at best. That is why earlier in this thread it was correctly stated: "not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists, but all hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians."

Why are they tenuous? God decreed to us that we should do various things here on earth. I am really not following why you would consider them tenous?

Because the main focus on the gospel is on God being just and the justifier of the ungodly. It is very difficult for the supra to show God's justice, for the reasons I have stated above.

So I ask again, what do you say to an unbeliever when he says, "why am I going to hell?"

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I have repeatedly explained it very concisely and simply, and you have never once attempted to answer or even acknowledge it, so I will say it again: The supra view asserts that the decree of death precedes the decree of sin, whereas Romans 6:23 makes clear that death is the wages of sin, and thus a result of sin.

Okay and I see no problem with saying that sin results in our eternal death in a supra view. You can get upset if you wish to do so. I do not see how the supra view is imcompatible with saying that the God has decreed the correspondence between sin and death. Therefore saying that the result of sin is death does not seem to contradict the supra view.

I do not see how you can have a problem unless you believe that there is some inherent property of sin to cause Death outside of God and His decrees etc.

CT

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I have repeatedly explained it very concisely and simply, and you have never once attempted to answer or even acknowledge it, so I will say it again: The supra view asserts that the decree of death precedes the decree of sin, whereas Romans 6:23 makes clear that death is the wages of sin, and thus a result of sin.

Okay and I see no problem with saying that sin results in our eternal death in a supra view. You can get upset if you wish to do so. I do not see how the supra view is imcompatible with saying that the God has decreed the correspondence between sin and death. Therefore saying that the result of sin is death does not seem to contradict the supra view.

I do not see how you can have a problem unless you believe that there is some inherent property of sin to cause Death outside of God and His decrees etc.

CT

I'm not upset about anything, and I hope you're not, either, as I don't know why anyone would be. That being said, how can you say that the supra view allows for death having its place as the result of sin, when the death was fully decreed before the sin was at all? According to the supra view, when death was decreed, there was not yet any decreed sin to cause it, so death cannot be seen as being the result of sin, which only came into the picture after the death was already set in place. In oder to affirm that death is a result of sin, one must hold that the sin was in the picture when the death was decreed.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I have repeatedly explained it very concisely and simply, and you have never once attempted to answer or even acknowledge it, so I will say it again: The supra view asserts that the decree of death precedes the decree of sin, whereas Romans 6:23 makes clear that death is the wages of sin, and thus a result of sin.

Okay and I see no problem with saying that sin results in our eternal death in a supra view. You can get upset if you wish to do so. I do not see how the supra view is imcompatible with saying that the God has decreed the correspondence between sin and death. Therefore saying that the result of sin is death does not seem to contradict the supra view.

I do not see how you can have a problem unless you believe that there is some inherent property of sin to cause Death outside of God and His decrees etc.

CT

CT,

I think what Chris is trying to say is this simple:

Supra schema
Death ==> sin as a necessary means to achieve death

Infra schema
Sin ==> death as a necessary outcome of sin

In the supra schema, death is the cause of sin; in the infra, sin is the cause of death.