October 1, 2013
Originally posted here
Originally posted here
Does this article of faith indicate whether
the Framers of the 1689 CoF were supralapsarians or infralapsarians? Thanks.
1689.3.3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or
foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ,
to the praise of his glorious grace; others
being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his
glorious justice.
Your thought would be much appreciated.
===========================
The following exchanges took place:
The following exchanges took place:
Jerry Chapin
I'm not going to worry about it...whether
"sub..or.."supra"...
PJ Walters
It most definitely would not indicate that
they were supralapsarian because of it stating that those others were
"left to act in their sin" and not that they were predestined to act
in their sin, but it cannot be indubitably determined if they were
infralapsarian either.
Sing F Lau
Pj, that's the safest kind of answer!
What is the middle ground between supra and
infra!!!
Charles Page
on the surface it would seem that they were
supralapsarian! I myself prefer supralapsarian as it makes God sovereign over
all creation whereas the infralapsarian view tends to admit a strong
compatibility between the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man.
Supralapsarian view acknowledges the full
meaning of "sovereignty" whereas infralapsarian suggests a
'humanitarian' expression in God's sovereignty!'
In all matters theologically man wants his
foot in the door!
Sing F Lau
Charles, please explain how;
1. "supralapsarian as it makes God
sovereign over all creation"
2. "the infralapsarian view tends to
admit a strong compatibility between the sovereignty of God and the freedom of
man."
The issue is about the logical order of the
various decrees of God, all of which WERE before the foundation of the world.
The 'supra' position says the decree of
election is logically BEFORE to the decree of the fall.
The "infra" position says the
decree of the election is logically AFTER the decree of the fall.
PJ Walters
I adhere to neither as there cannot be
"first" and "second" in the eternal purposes of God; for
"first" and "second" exist in time only, not in eternity.
Sing F Lau
Pj, you adhere to neither.
Let me inquire: did God elect those
considered fallen, or those still upright? Thanks.
Charles Page
Pj, for me that is the reason I prefer the
view of 'supra' over 'infra'
Sing F Lau
Charles, what is "the reason" for
your preference? Thanks.
PJ Walters
God elected those considered as neither
fallen, nor upright.
Charles Page
Sing. perhaps for me it is a logical
deduction. I first assume a definition of what divine sovereignty is and then
conclude that only a supralapsarian view represents God's decrees.
Sovereignty is absolute self-existent divine
autonomy. God acts according to His own will and His own pleasure. God does not
have to create to demonstrate his sovereignty but is sovereign in creation.
As I understand infralapsarian views, God
creates illusions and mysteries that makes us assume he is sovereign. That
seems to imply a sort of inferior sovereignty - much as the inferior
sovereignty assigned to Satan by dualist. By necessity both "sovereigns"
(God and Satan) are inadequately sovereign in dualism. They both must be
comprehensible.
God is incomprehensible, self-existent and
unknowable.
Our eternal election is rooted in the
sovereign will of God. We cannot address the existence of the non-elect with
the same satisfactory understanding as we can the election of His children.
The election of the saints is clear and the
state of the non-elect is speculative and uncertain.
We only know they will be cast into the Lake
of Fire. The elect know where they are going and the reason they are going!
Sing F Lau
Pj, you are smarter all the time in giving
good safe answers.
Sing F Lau
Charles, how does God decreeing the fall
first, and then decreeing election in any way diminish or detract from His
ABSOLUTELY sovereignty? Just asking, not defending any position!
Charles Page
well, if He decreed the fall first then there
is a double predestination, an election to reprobation and an election to
heaven. This is Calvinism!
The election to heaven will then be believers
and the snare here is a conditional election based on sinner's believing.
"Moderated Calvinism" / "Reformed theology"
Charles Page
infralapsarianism is uniquely reformed
Baptist, Calvinist theology. IMHO
As I understand it a Primitive Baptist
holding consistent with his beliefs in grace will/should be a supralapsarian!
I believe that Gill and Kuyper were
supralapsarian! Most all moderated followers of Calvin are infralapsarian.
Mark Thomas
I believe the 1689 is infralapsarian in
viewpoint. I believe that God elected His people considering the in the impure
lump of fallen humanity. There would be no need to elect and predestine the
non-fallen. The fallacy with attempting to set in sequential order the logic of
God is that God is not limited to sequence as our human minds are.
Mark Thomas
Speaking of decreeing one thing first and
then decreeing something else is not what the wise framers of the 1689 did.
They spoke of the decree of God - not the decrees of God.
Sing F Lau
There would be no need to elect and
predestine the non-fallen.
======
Election and predestination would be
necessary to elevate even non-fallen earthy humans to become glorified heavenly
spiritual beings.
I'm not sure if I make sense.
Charles Page
Sam Storms, "Chosen for Life, the case
for Divine Election" has a good appendix (C) in his book for the divine
decrees. He himself is an infralapsarian but gives a good explanation of both
views.
I do believe that there is a decree of
eternal election. Some people insist it is an election to salvation but that
would imply a corresponding election to damnation.
Charles Page
Charles are you familiar with the doctrine of
preterition?
Charles Page
I am not prepared to explain an election to
damnation as of yet nor am I comfortable with saying God in His omniscience is
the author of sin.
There seems to be in the Bible statements
counter to our human intuition/logic. And neither lapsarian view adequately
resolves that "mystery"
Charles Page
Sing, do you agree with Mark that the 1689
COF is infralapsarian? I am inclined to think so also.
Personally, for me I see a praise to God's
justice demonstrated in hell rather than the Lake of Fire. The lake of fire was
for the devil and his angels and hell came into being because of the fall of
man. -my speculation, for what it is worth!
Charles Page
Jesus was the lamb slain before the
foundations of the earth were laid. Was the fall foreseen and was the fall the
reason for the decree of Christ to be the slain lamb? does God decree because
of a cause apart from Himself?
Sing F Lau
The passage you refer to:
The passage you refer to:
Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth
shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world.
===================
"of the lamb slain" QUALIFIES the
book of life. It answers to whose book of life?
"from the foundation of the world"
QUALIFIES the writing of the names in the book of life.
The Lamb was slain some 200 years ago!
Charles Page
1813?
Charles Page
really good thread, Sing, I enjoy this!
Sing F Lau
I loathe (LOVE) your sharp eyes! 2000.
A boy went up to a girl and said smoothly and
affectionately, "I loathe you very much." And the girl went all red,
imagining she heard the loveliest words of her life!
Charles Page
I am in loathe!
PJ Walters
As I understand, God elected a people while
considering them as creable, and so neither fallen, nor upright; and,
therefore, "neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God
according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that
calleth..."
PJ Walters
Those whom He did not elect, He simply passed
by them; and they, having not done anything good nor evil, were done no
injustice by God in His passing by them.
Charles Page
it seems it is speculative to suggest God
passed them by. The only surety we have is a saint's divine election. This is
clear from scripture and the idea of reprobation or perdition (active or
passive damnation) is more speculative.
PJ Walters
The opposite of election is not reprobation,
but non-election. Damnation, reprobation, and even predestination are distinct
from election. For in God electing a people, God chose them to give to Christ.
And only those whom God has elected are the ones who be predestinated.
Linda Lancaster
He calls "ALL". BUt being GOD, He
knows who will reject the call and who will respond. So let God be God, please.
Charles Page
I reject and even detest that statement,
Linda!
The only ones pleased are the ejectors of
unconditional election!
Linda Lancaster
Explain please, are you telling me that there
are those that God is going to withhold salvation from?
Charles Page
No, I am saying no one should be saved at
all, none are deserving. If any are saved it is according to a gracious
election!
Charles Page
Linda, your question implies that God will
not save people who otherwise deserve saving. That would not be a responsible
conclusion to draw. God is just and does right!
Linda Lancaster
So the Scripture "All are called but few
are chosen" please explain.
Charles Page
I have never read that verse. Is it in the
Bible?
Charles Page
There is a verse that says "many are
called few are chosen..."
my belief is that many are the elect and few
are the remnant of those who comprehend their election. Both are the result of
God's divine revelation. He regenerates all the elect and opens the eyes and
ears of a remnant to comprehend this election.
Sing F Lau
There is a verse that says "many are
called few are chosen..."
Mt 22:14 For many are called, but few are
chosen.
That's the conclusion of a parable of the
kingdom of heaven that began in 22:2.
The parables of the kingdom of heaven
instruct some aspect of the kingdom of heaven. The immediate context is
always God's children among the Jews.
Many of them are called to enter the kingdom
of heaven but only are chosen to ENJOY the blessings of the kingdom of heaven.
Linda Lancaster
So then, the 'many' are not 'all', then there
will be those who will not enjoy God's election! Are you referring to Israel as
the remnant? Sorry that I misquoted the scripture. Please bear with me, I really
need to understand this. So I will ask many questions.
Sing F Lau
'Many'
is spelled M A N Y. 'All' is spelled A L L.
Therefore 'MANY' can't possible be the same
as the 'ALL.' Words have their specific meaning in their specific context!!!
Many of the people and all of the people are
completely different numbers altogether. I bought many of the apples, and I
bought all of the apples are obviously different!
Many of God's children are called by the
gospel. Not ALL of God's children are called by the gospel. Some are never
called by the gospel.
Of all that are called by the gospel, few are
chosen to enjoy the blessings of it. That's what the whole parable of the
kingdom of heaven is telling us.
Linda Lancaster
And so relating that to salvation, it means
that not all will enter the kingdom of heaven, right. THere will definitely be
those who reject the call of God on their lives and thereby end up in hell. And
that is what I was saying to Charles. And so God knows those who will reject
those, because He is the All Knowing God. I know what all and many mean.
Charles Page
"not all will enter the kingdom of
heaven. There will definitely be those who reject the call of God on their
lives and thereby end up in hell." Linda, don't confuse hell with the Lake
of Fire in that statement!
Your statement is my belief!
Linda Lancaster
Hell for those who have rejected salvation,
lake of fire for the devil and his cohorts, I believe.
Linda Lancaster
So then, let's get back to 'election'. How
does that relate to what I have been talking about?
Charles Page
Hell, 'sheol'-(Hebrew) 'hades' (Greek) is
where everyone goes at death. The visible part of man to the grave and the
invisible part to hell where all await the final bodily resurrection and judgment.
Hell is not divided by election but by righteousness, faithfulness. One place
with a great chasm that separates them.
All are awaiting in earthly time the final
consummation in a state of pure justice and is a state that we should strive
for on earth. Yet the fall of Adam has severed that hope for us. The regenerate
are supposed to seek for the will of God on earth as it is in 'heaven'. We are
regenerated for that very purpose on earth yet even the regenerate resist that
very demand.
Linda Lancaster
So then please explain the scripture
"absent from the body, present with the Lord". I believe that at
death my body is put in the grave and my spirit has gone to be with my Father
in heaven. When Christ returns (rapture) my body will be and spirit will again
become one. The dead body in Christ will rise to meet Him in the air.
Linda Lancaster
And referring to "the will of God which
is in heaven" that should be done on earth. What is the will of God on
earth. For me "that all will come to a knowledge of God"
Charles Page
at death, all bodies are reduced to dust and
ashes and the spirit returns to it's creator. "absent from the body
present with the Lord" all spirits go to be with the Lord in the
"third heaven" - some to torment and others to pleasure, awaiting the
final resurrection.
When you die you don't go to a place with
streets paved with gold - that comes with the final bodily resurrection and
final judgment.
Charles Page
Linda, direct your future remarks to Sing, as
this is his thread and I am a lurker whose mission to provoke self-righteous
leadership. I am not a teacher but a provocateur!
I minister within the limits of my faith!
Linda Lancaster
I don't mind who answers my questions. I
think we understand each other.
