Archive

God’s Eternal Decree by W. E. Best Pt 4 (D)

September 16, 2010 Leave a comment

Comparison Of The Supralapsarian And Infralapsarian Theories

The supralapsarian concept leads to God making eternal punishment and eternal life objects of His will in the same sense. Sin willed and determined by God but not in the same manner as grace and salvation. There is a relation between sin and the counsel of God, but the relation is not causality. God has allowed sin, but He would not have permitted it if He had not been able to absolutely and sovereignly rule it.

Does God merely permit sin, or did He decree to permit it? Some contend that God simply permitted it as though He could do nothing about it. However, God is on the throne; and whatever takes place in providence occurs by the determinate counsel of God. The death of the Lord Jesus Christ leads one to that conclusion. It cannot be denied that God willed the death of His Son by the hands of wicked men. God was not passive in that. There is what is known as mere permission, but it will not stand the test of Scripture. Therefore, distinction must be made between God merely permitting something and determining in His purpose to permit it.

Supralapsarians and infralapsarians differ concerning the extent of predestination. Supralapsarians include the decree to create and the decree to permit the fall in predestination. Whereas, infralapsarians include the decree to create and the decree to permit the fall in the purpose of God in general, but they do not embrace double predestination. According to the supralapsarian view, man appeared in the decree of predestination not as created and fallen but certain to be created and fallen. According to infralapsarians, man appeared in the decree of predestination as already created and fallen.

Advertisements

God’s Eternal Decree by W. E. Best Pt 4 (B)

September 15, 2010 Leave a comment

Comparison Of The Supralapsarian And Infralapsarian Theories

Supralapsarians and infralapsarians both admit that the fall of amn was included in the Divine purpose. However, they differ in their explanations of God’s persmission of sin. Supralapsarians assert that God permits sin, but He decreed to permit it . Some infralapsarians say that He merely permitted it.

The fact of God’s permissive decrees according to the will of His counsel propagated by supralapsarians and the errneous doctrine of mere permission propagated by some infralapsarians vastly differ. The supralapsarians emphasize the positive element to the extent that those who follow the system accuse God of the authorship of sin. Some infralapsarians overemphasize the permissive character of the decree of God until it is reduced to a mere permission.

God does not decree actions that are sinful as sin. Decreeing actions as sinful is not the same as decreeing them for the sake of the sinfulness of the actions. God wills to permit sin because He does permit it. No one can say that god does what He does not will to do. To say that sin exists when God did not willit to exist would be a denial of the sovereingty of God. The supralapsarian correctly says that God decreed to permit the fall.

God’s Eternal Decree by W. E. Best Pt 4 (A)

September 15, 2010 Leave a comment

Comparison Of The Supralapsarian And Infralapsarian Theories

Supralapsarians and infralapsarians differ in their opinions concerning the order in God’s decree. Supralapsarians proceed on the assumption that in God’s purpose His thoughts proceed from the end to the means in a retrograde movement; so that which is first in design is last in execution. Whereas, infralapsarians suggest a more historical order. The infralapsarian view of the order of history is correct. The events of the creation, fall, incarnation, cross, resurrection, and pentacost are found in succession in history.

Supralapsarians are correct to magnify God’s sovereignty. That which is first in intention is last in execution, and that which is last in execution is first in intention. God’s purpose is eternal. The first thing in God’s mind was the manifestation of Himself. He decreed to reveal Himself by manifesting His glory through the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ stands first in the counsel of God. He is the firstborn of every creature (Colossians 1:15), the firstborn from among the dead (Colossians 1:18), and the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29). He is the first because election is in Christ. Therefore, according to God’s purpose, the Lord Jesus Christ preceded the elect in God’s plan. In that sense, the supralapsarian view is correct. God decreed to manifest Himself – His glory – before He decreed to create man, decreed the fall, decreed to elect some, decreed to pass by some, etc. The last thing in the execution of His plan is for His glory: salvation of the elect, passing by the nonelect, displaying and bestowing grace, and the kingdom.

Infralapsarians correctly appeal to Scripture for support of some beliefs. Pharaoh already existed when the Lord declared His purpose for raising him up. He was a fallen creature whom God used to manifest His power to the world. The Lord will have mercy on whom He will and will harden whom He will (Romans 9:18). The potter has power over the clay. The clay refers to the fallen mass of mankind. The apostle indicated a mass of people already created and fallen. From that mass, God elected some and passed by others.

Is Belief in Divine Creation Rational

September 13, 2010 Leave a comment

Here is a good link to a lecture that is given, proving that the only logical world view for the origin of the universe is the Biblical world view. Click Here