Which is correct?

Discussion in 'Theological Forum' started by CIT, Mar 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CIT

    CIT Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Did God create man with the idea of having a people to call His own and thus ordain the Fall and Redemption of those people in order to achieve a people to call His own?


    Did God create a way for His Son to receive glory (which was through the Redemption of the elect) and out of necessity create mankind and ultimately covenant with His elect?

    I am reading NT Wright on Galatians for class and it seems that Wright takes the first idea. Everything he says is based upon this idea of God's covenantal and eschatological ultimate plan that involves the elect.

    I am ignorant on the subject, but I think that either position is better than the individualistic idea of Jesus loves me and had me on His mind while hanging on the cross.
  2. CIT

    CIT Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    I wanted to add that I am not attempting to bait someone as if I were a closet Wrightian. My default answer is to put Christ before anything thus my second scenario fits this criteria. I am just looking for something more concrete than "well my gut thinks."

    Can a concrete answer even be determined?
  3. Pilgrim Standard

    Pilgrim Standard Puritan Board Sophomore

    I am rather ignorant to the question myself, but it is rather interesting. I look forward to anyone who can answer as well...

    Is this not dealing with lapsarian views?

    If I am not mistaken
    Supralapsarian would state the logical order as thus:
    (Decree of Election and Reprobation) precede the Decree of the Fall

    Infralapsarian would state the logical order as thus:
    Decree of the Fall precedes the (Decree of Election and Reprobation)

    What I can't figure out is why one of them necessarily must be correct?
    Why must there be an order?
    Can't they all be simultaneous and not dependent upon one another?
    God created man
    and ordained the Fall and Redemption
    and achieved a people to call His own
    and Glorified His Son
    and covenanted with His elect
    and caused it all to happen in time​

    I hope I am not thread-jacking? But I do believe that it is possible that neither of them are correct. Or perhaps I am not correct.
  4. CIT

    CIT Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    I assumed it dealt with some lapsarian view, but I know very little of any of them.
  5. Pilgrim Standard

    Pilgrim Standard Puritan Board Sophomore

    Surely someone out their has more information about Lapsarian views and their implications. Anyone?
  6. discipulo

    discipulo Puritan Board Junior

    Actually I think we need both views, Bavinck surely gives both views a role in our apreehension

    of God's order of His Decretive Will.

    The text link follows below in what Klaas Schilder called the most beautiful pages ever written on Dogmatics.

    Bavinck (if you haven't it yet do get the Biography of Bavinck by Ron Gleason, is fantastic)

    had a high regard for Dort and the Confessions that were basically InfraLapsarian, stating that God choose out of fallen people,

    but the door was never closed to the SupraLapasarianism, and Kuyper was on this side, as were other Theologians before-

    Bavinck was pretty cautious not to step on anyone's toes either on the CGK or on the Doleantie movmt.

    It is providential that he wrote that way.

    Since it is a matter on the edge of speculating over Archetypical Theology

    - knowing how God knows - pretending to know the Hidden things that belong to God like the Decree or the Mystery of Providence,

    rather than formulating Ectypical Theology based on Special Revelation.

    If Scripture was absolutely clear on a single order we wouldn't have 2 possible orders claimed by great solid theologians.

    Or even 3 if you count Robert Reymond's quite unfortunate attempt to bring a new formulation of the problem,

    while being consistently Confessional as he surely is on most of his Dogmatics, on this he was not at his best.

    Anyway, we can't be sure, Bavinck, such a brilliant educated mind, never claimed to be sure on this.

    Berkhof follows like he often did, on his steps.

    More speculative scholastic fellows like Witsius, Voetius or Kuyper (a great fan of Voetius) felt comfortable on beingh sure about Supralapsarianism.

    Maybe we should be more humble like Bavinck is.

    Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism by Herman Bavinck
  7. Joseph Scibbe

    Joseph Scibbe Puritan Board Junior

    Whichever one NT Wright said is wrong. ;)

    While I will confess that we are made for God we are not made to be Gods playthings. I think that God created us to be in covenant with Him but also we are made for his glory. Does it have to be either/or or am I missing something here?
  8. CIT

    CIT Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    I don't think it has to be either/or.

    Wright in Galatians is making the case that the main focus is being a part of the family of God, to be in covenant with Him. The focus is not on sin and the forgiveness. The forgiveness of sin is necessary to be a part of the covenant, but it is not the focus.

    From what I can tell Wright is saying, "Everyone wants to be a part of the covenant family of God, this requires the Messiah to pay for their sins." He is not saying, "Everyone is a sinner and needs a Messiah, when these sins are forgiven one of the benefits is that we are now part of the family of God."

    I do not like alot of Wright's ultimate conclusions, but thinking through the Scriptures with the former foundation seems proper to me.

    In the end though I do recognize that I am a feeble theologian and welcome correction where needed.
  9. py3ak

    py3ak They're stalling and plotting against me Staff Member

    God's purpose in predestination is explicitly stated to be that Christ would be the firstborn among many brethren. That certainly creates a requirement for there to be many brethren, but in keeping with Colossians 1, puts Christ at the pinnacle. It makes sense to me that if it pleased the Father that Christ should have the preeminence in all things, then Christ was preeminent in God's purposes; which of course does not deny the reality or glory or kindness of the less principal ends.
  10. Pilgrim Standard

    Pilgrim Standard Puritan Board Sophomore


    If God's decree is eternal, why necessitate a logical order?
    Perhaps I am wrong, but if the decrees are without beginning or ending can they not be said to be simultaneous, even logically?
  11. py3ak

    py3ak They're stalling and plotting against me Staff Member

    It isn't a question of simultaneity: of course the one comprehensive decision is eternal and not subject to time, though it determines all that takes place in time, as well as its sequence. But as I understand the question that started the thread it is rather, "What was decreed as a means to an end?" I think everyone can agree that the Fall was not decreed as an end in itself, so obviously some of what the decree entails is logically subordinate to other things the decree entails. What I meant to say in my previous post is that from the Scriptures I mentioned it seems like Christ is that for the sake of which everything else was decreed.
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2011
  12. Pilgrim Standard

    Pilgrim Standard Puritan Board Sophomore

    Thanks Ruben... I think it is beginning to sink in now. Logical subordination within the decree of God.
    I will have to review the subject from scripture again with this in mind.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page