Which are you? Supra or Infra & why.

[NB3K]

the Westminster Confession is an infralapsarian document.

Yes that is so true, but there were Supralapsariains at the Westminster Assembly, but as always the infralapsarians win.

 

[greenbaggins]

The question is an interesting one, but I'm not sure that it is a helpful one. I have yet to see a discussion of the order of decrees that does not lapse into a temporal order, however much they might protest that it is a logical order being discussed. My friend Wes White has tried to convince me that it is an important discussion, and that Infra is the only biblical position. I'm not convinced. I think a discussion of the order of decrees is not especially helpful. They were all made in eternity, and they were all made in reference to each other. No one decree was made without all the others in view. To my mind, this undercuts the whole debate.

 

[NB3K]

Sorry, but I'm not convinced the OP has a decent grasp on what the two views mean based on comments on this and other threads...

§ 2. Supralapsarianism.

First, the supralapsarian scheme. According to this view, God in order to manifest his grace and justice selected from creatable men (i.e., from men to be created) a certain number to be vessels of mercy, and certain others to be vessels of wrath. In the order of thought, election and reprobation precede the purpose to create and to permit the fall. Creation is in order to redemption. God creates some to be saved, and others to be lost. [Hodge Vol 2 page 316]

§ 3. Infralapsarianism.

According to the infralapsarian doctrine, God, with the design to reveal his own glory, that is, the perfections of his own nature, determined to create the world, secondly, to permit the fall of man; thirdly, to elect from the mass of fallen men a multitude whom no man could number as “vessels of mercy;” fourthly, to send his Son for their redemption; and, fifthly, to leave the residue of mankind, as He left the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins. [Hodge Vol. 2 pages 319-320]

The grasp that I do have is: between these two views, namely the "supra" does not taken into acount whether or not man is fallen, & the "infra" does. And you are right, that I have a very limited grasp on this. This is why I need to be taught why people believe what they believe, because we all gain the more.

 

[Irish Presbyterian]

J. V. Fesko's article "The Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism: Calvin and the Divines" in 'The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century Volume 2' is worth checking out. I believe it is a shorter version of his Phd at Aberdeen.

 

[NB3K]

According to this view, God in order to manifest his grace and justice selected from creatable men (i.e., from men to be created) a certain number to be vessels of mercy, and certain others to be vessels of wrath.

Supra's view the whole end of all creation is for the manifestation of God's grace and justice, and therefore without considering what the nature of the clay was before He formed it decided what the vessel's purpose would be to exist. Now the Infra would scream that's a gross misrepresentation of God's Holiness & Righteouseness? That God would or is it could never damn something that is neither viewed as fallen or upright.

Is this correct?

 

[NB3K]

4.Perhaps an easier way to look at the supra/infra issue is to ask about the objects of election. In election, was God choosing people out of a fallen mass of humanity, or from a mass of humanity irrespective of the fall? This is the way that the debate arose, and the ordering of decrees was a logical mechanism for evaluating it. By addressing the issue as it touches upon the objects of election, we are able avoid mere speculation and approach it in a more exegetical and scriptural manner. The classic passage is Romans 9:20-23. The lump of clay, by analogy, is the object God’s election. The Christian, in understanding this text, asks, “Are we to understand this lump as representing fallen humanity, or un-fallen humanity?” Supralapsarians say un-fallen, and Infralapsarians say fallen.

In the end, the infralapsarians are not in a better position than the Supralapsarians. Both groups admit that God ordained the fall. And, both agree that man was culpable in the fall, and that the reprobate is at fault for his damnation. So, the Reformed position, either way, must accept the fact that God foreordained the fall of humanity into sin. Infralapsarianism tries to ease the tension by saying that reprobation is just God leaving the fallen person in his own sinful condition. Nevertheless, the Infralapsarian still has to deal with the fact that God prearranged with certainty that the reprobate be within the fallen mass of humanity to begin with. It is only to remove the tension a very small step to say that God chose to leave some in their sinful state, since God determined that they would be a part of that sinful lump of clay from the start. Infralapsarians and Supralapsarians alike must humbly bow before the sovereignty of God.

It might come as a surprise to many, but some of the most practical theologians and evangelistic ministers of the 16th and 17th Century were Supralapsarians.
Jonathan Edwards and Supralapsarianism « Miscellanies.

THis is what I have thought the whole of the Supra/Infra debate was about.

 

[Peairtach]

I've always thought that the decree that God would become Man is very significant and yet is not highlighted in these debates. Clearly God wanted to become Man (e.g. Proverbs 8), but didn't need to on His own account.

Here's Dabney's take on the subject:
Systematic Theology 232-4

5. All who call themselves Calvinists admit that God's
decree is, in His mind, a cotemporaneous unit. Yet the attempt
to assign an order to its relative parts, has led to three different
schemes of predestination: that of the Supralapsarian, of the
Sublapsarian, and of the Hypothetic Universalist.
The first suppose that in a rational mind, that which is
ultimate as end, is first in design ; and that,
in the process of planning, the mind passes
from the end to the means, traveling as it were backwards.

Hence, God first designed His own glory by the salvation of a
definite number of men conceived as yet only as in posse, and
the reprobation of another definite number; that then He purposed
their creation, then the permission of their fall, and then
the other parts of the plan of redemption for the elect. I do
not mean to represent that they impute to God an actual succession
of time as to the rise of the parts of the decree in His
eternal mind, but that these divines represent God as planning
man's creation and fall, as a means for carrying out His predestination,
instead of planning his election as a means for repairing
his fall.

The Sublapsarian assigns the opposite order; that God
determined to create man in His own image,
to place him under a covenant of works,
to permit his fall, and with reference to the fallen and guilty
state thus produced, to elect in sovereign mercy some to be
saved, passing by the rest in righteous judgment upon their
sins, and that He further decreed to send Jesus Christ to redeem
the elect. This milder scheme the Supralapsarians assert to be
attended with the vice of the Arminian, in making the decree
conditional; in that God's decree of predestination is made
dependent on man's use of his free will under the covenant of
works. They also assert that their scheme is the symmetrical
one, in that it assigns the rational order which exists between
ultimate end and intermediate means.

In my opinion this is a question which never ought to have
been raised. Both schemes are illogical and
Both erroneous. contradictory to the true state of facts. But
the Sublapsarian is far more Scriptural in its tendencies, and its
general spirit far more honourable to God. The Supralapsarian,
under a pretense of greater symmetry, is in reality the
more illogical of the two, and misrepresents the divine character
and the facts of Scripture in a repulsive manner. The view
from which it starts, that the ultimate end must be first in
design, and then the intermediate means, is of force only with
reference to a finite mind. God's decree has no succession;
and to Him no successive order of parts ; because it is a cotemporaneous
unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intuition.
In this thing, the statements of both parties are untrue
to God's thought. The true statement of the matter is, that in
this co-etaneous, unit plan, one part of the plan is devised by
God with reference to a state of facts which He intended to
result from another part of the plan; but all parts equally present,
and all equally primary to His mind. As to the decree to
create man, to permit his fall, to elect some to life; neither part
preceded any other part with God. But His purpose to elect
had reference to a state of facts which was to result from His
purpose to create, and permit the fall. It does not seem to me
that the Sublapsarian scheme makes the decree conditional.
True, one result decreed is dependent on another result decreed;
but this is totally another thing. No scheme can avoid this,
not even the Supralapsarian, unless it does away with all agency
except God's, and makes Him the direct author of sin.

But we object more particularly to the
Supralapsarian scheme.
(a) That it is erroneous in representing God as having
before His mind, as the objects of predestination, men conceived
in posse only; and in making creation a means of their salvation
or damnation. Whereas, an object must be conceived as
existing, in order to have its destiny given to it. And creation
can with no propriety be called a means for effectuating a
decree of predestination as to creatures. It is rather a prerequisite
of such decree.

(b.) It contradicts Scripture, which teaches us that God
chose His elect "out of the world," Jno. xv : 19, and out of
the "same lump " with the vessels of dishonour, Rom. ix : 21.
They were then regarded as being, along with the non-elect, in
the common state of sin and misery.

(c.) Our election is in Christ our Redeemer, Eph. i : 4;
iii : 11, which clearly shows that we are conceived as being
fallen, and in need of a Redeemer, in this act. And, moreover,
our election is an election to the exercise of saving graces to
be wrought in us by Christ, i Pet. i : 2; 2 Thess. ii : 13.

(d.) Election is declared to be an act of mercy: Rom. ix :
15, 16; xi : 5, 6, and preterition is an act of justice, Rom. ix :
22. Now as mercy and goodness imply an apprehension of
guilt and misery in their object, so justice implies ill-desert.
This shows that man is predestinated as fallen; and is not permitted
to fall because predestinated.

I will conclude this part,
by repeating the language of Turrettin, Loc. 4, Qu. 18, §5.
1. "By this hypothesis, the first act of God's will towards
some of His creatures is conceived to be an act of hatred, in
so far as He willed to demonstrate His righteousness in their
damnation, and indeed before they were considered as in sin,
and consequently before they were deserving of hatred ; nay,
while they were conceived as still innocent, and so rather the
objects of love. This does not seem compatible with God's
ineffable goodness.

2. "It is likewise harsh that, according to this scheme, God
is supposed to have imparted to them far the greatest effects of
love, out of a principle of hatred, in that He determines to create
them in a state of integrity to this end, that He may illustrate
His righteousness in their damnation. This seems to
express Him neither as supremely good nor as supremely wise
and just.

3. "It is erroneously supposed that God exercised an act of
mercy and justice towards His creatures in His foreordination
of their salvation and destruction, in that they are conceived as
neither wretched, nor even existing as yet. But since those
virtues (mercy and justice) are relative, they pre-suppose their
object, do not make it.

4. "It is also asserted without warrant, that creation and the
fall are means of election and reprobation, since they are antecedent
to them : else sin would be on account of damnation,
whereas damnation is on account of sin; and God would be
said to have created men that He might destroy them."

 

[tman]

I don't think you can state things here that are contra-confessional, but I'm not the judge (moderator).

Yes true, but doesn't the Bible teach that God just does what ever HE wants to do with the Reprobate. I mean when Paul states that God is "fitting" "vessels of wrath" to the very end which is "destruction" for the praise of His glorious grace. It doesn't sound as if they're being merely passed by. And I think I am mixing apples with oranges???

You are dead on! There is no passiveness here, God is active. Call it "double predestination" or "equal ultimacy" it doesn't matter, God is the active One here. When was the last time you saw a clay pot form itself without the hands of a potter involved?

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM ----------

"Oh no, "Tman" is a hyper-calvinist!" I hear it coming already.

 

[Notthemama1984]

You are dead on! There is no passiveness here, God is active. Call it "double predestination" or "equal ultimacy" it doesn't matter, God is the active One here. When was the last time you saw a clay pot form itself without the hands of a potter involved?

Those who believe that God passed by (as the Confessions put it) also believe in double predestination.

 

[JM]

I don't think you can state things here that are contra-confessional, but I'm not the judge (moderator).

Yes true, but doesn't the Bible teach that God just does what ever HE wants to do with the Reprobate. I mean when Paul states that God is "fitting" "vessels of wrath" to the very end which is "destruction" for the praise of His glorious grace. It doesn't sound as if they're being merely passed by. And I think I am mixing apples with oranges???

You are dead on! There is no passiveness here, God is active. Call it "double predestination" or "equal ultimacy" it doesn't matter, God is the active One here. When was the last time you saw a clay pot form itself without the hands of a potter involved?

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM ----------

"Oh no, "Tman" is a hyper-calvinist!" I hear it coming already.

 

[dudley]

I believe we can not explain the infinite within our finite minds. That is one reason why so many people have difficulty understanding the Reformed Presbyterian teaching of Predestination. It is impossible for us to imagine that there really is no past present and future with God.. However I do know from my studies that The distinction between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the logical order of God's eternal decrees, not the timing of election. Neither side suggests that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)—long before Adam sinned. Both infralapsarians and supralapsarians (and even many Arminians) agree on this.

 

[tman]

[QUOTE
Those who believe that God passed by (as the Confessions put it) also believe in double predestination.[/QUOTE]

Really? How do you predestine something that you are "passive" in?

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ----------

I believe we can not explain the infinite within our finite minds. That is one reason why so many people have difficulty understanding the Reformed Presbyterian teaching of Predestination. It is impossible for us to imagine that there really is no past present and future with God.. However I do know from my studies that The distinction between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the logical order of God's eternal decrees, not the timing of election. Neither side suggests that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)—long before Adam sinned. Both infralapsarians and supralapsarians (and even many Arminians) agree on this.

Thank you for your post. The problem lies in the order of our thinking. God starts at the end and plans backward.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Because God actively chose to pass over the non-elect before the beginning of time. His passing over is not a passive decision.

 

[tman]

So the actions of the "non-elect" were outside of the sovereignty of God? The "forming" of the vessels of wrath wasn't really a forming. Paul was a liar?

---------- Post added at 08:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------

The vessels of mercy were formed by the hands of God, but the vessels of wrath were self formed? No hands needed.

 

[Notthemama1984]

So the actions of the "non-elect" were outside of the sovereignty of God? The "forming" of the vessels of wrath wasn't really a forming. Paul was a liar?

I never said anything remotely close to that.

 

[tman]

What I am saying is that Romans 9 says that the reprobate are formed vessels also, that's ACTIVE forming by God, not a passive "go about your business" and form yourself.

 

[Notthemama1984]

What I am saying is that Romans 9 says that the reprobate are formed vessels also, that's ACTIVE forming by God, not a passive "go about your business" and form yourself.

I know what Romans 9 says. I am not advocating a "go about your business" attitude.

 

[tman]

So where is the word "passive" in Romans. I only see the word "forming". I think that at sometime we have to believe that God is in total control (sovereign) and that He might be active in the forming of everyone, not just the elect.

 

[Notthemama1984]

So where is the word "passive" in Romans. I only see the word "forming". I think that at sometime we have to believe that God is in total control (sovereign) and that He might me active in the forming of everyone not just the elect.

Because God actively chose to pass over the non-elect before the beginning of time. His passing over is not a passive decision.

Notice again that I am not advocating a passive action of God.

 

[tman]

So would you say that God is actively forming the reprobate vessels?

 

[Notthemama1984]

So would you say that God is actively forming the reprobate vessels?

Yes. Never stated otherwise.

---------- Post added at 10:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------

Romans 1 states that God gave the sinners over. He took His hands off. Obviously this cannot contradict Romans 9. The only answer is that any action God performs is actively forming the vessel (whether mankind views this action as passive or active). So God performing what can be perceived as a passive action is in fact an active action that helps form the vessel according to His will.

Thus God passing over the non-elect and double predestination coexist.

 

[Peairtach]

We need to remember that the potter and the clay is an analogy.

God is active in His providence with respect to the reprobate but they are responsible for their sin, not God. If they aren't responsible for their sin, but God is, I'm sure that would be a great comfort to them in Hell.

I think it helps in our contemplation of the Divine decrees to remember that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were involved in them, and not just the Father alone.

Also as a counter to an impersonal choosing of an abstract number, we need to remember that God foreknew i.e. foreloved and chose us as sinners and as named individuals according to His wisdom.

How this ties in with the supra/infra debate I'll leave for others.

 

[NB3K]

Romans 1 states that God gave the sinners over

So do those whom God gives over to their lust of their flesh & a reprobate mind, do they sin by necessity or by compulsion?

 

[Notthemama1984]

They sin on their own.

 

[Peairtach]

Romans 1 states that God gave the sinners over

So do those whom God gives over to their lust of their flesh & a reprobate mind, do they sin by necessity or by compulsion?

Well the language is of God giving them over rather than God instilling or infusing sin in them or inspiring them to sin or imparting sin to them.

 

[Michael]

There are plenty of scriptures that make this debate interesting but the two that really stick out to me are Rom 9:21 from the supra perspective and Rom 6:23 from the infra.

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.​

 

[NB3K]

They sin on their own

Yes that is true, but without faith everything they do is sin. They cannot cease to sin. I have heard one say that the plowing of the wicked is sin.

 

[Esther W.]

All mankind fell in Adam. God chose to save some and to some others-use them as objects specifically to scorn. In other words we are all objects of wrath and in God choosing to save some to eternal salvation, He demonstrates his grace. For no other purpose are we saved.

 

[Notthemama1984]

They sin on their own

Yes that is true, but without faith everything they do is sin. They cannot cease to sin. I have heard one say that the plowing of the wicked is sin.

VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:[23] yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;[24] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;[25] nor to a right end, the glory of God,[26] they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:[27] and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[28]

Westminster agrees with you. Not sure what point you are trying to make though.

---------- Post added at 02:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------

They sin on their own

Yes that is true, but without faith everything they do is sin. They cannot cease to sin. I have heard one say that the plowing of the wicked is sin.

VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:[23] yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;[24] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;[25] nor to a right end, the glory of God,[26] they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:[27] and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[28]

Westminster agrees with you. Not sure what point you are trying to make though.

 

[Peairtach]

The supralapsarians seem to put logic and freedom at the centre. We know that God is logical and that our logic is an analogy of His. But what God's logic is like in itself is a mystery.

Q. 4. What is God?
A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness,and truth.

God's following of His logic - which logic our minds follow analogically - is an aspect of His commitment to His truth.

But God has other characteristics, which should not be forgotten in the Holy Trinity's decreeing whatsoever would come to pass, and in electing some and reprobating others e.g. wisdom, righteousness, holiness, goodness and love.

God's decrees don't just reflect God's freedom and logic but also His wisdom, righteousness/justice, holiness, goodness and love, and commitment to truth generally.