The difference between permitting and doing

[User20004000]

But the Canons of Dort definitely sound infralapserian. See Article 7....God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin....

"In the “infra” view, election and reprobation only function within the reality of sin. Articles I.7 and I.15 clearly take this position when they say that God chose people out of the fallen human race and left others in their misery...

The Canons explicitly mention the fall before election; they purposefully speak of election out of the fallen race; they deliberately identify reprobation as non-election, as “a passing by” of already guilty sinners. All of this is typical of an infralapsarian approach...

The Westminster Confession of Faith is implicitly Infralapserian:

Finally, you can deny my assertion, but I believe the WCF is implicitly infralapserian. The words emphasized and the distinctions used speak of God electing some and passing by others, yes, but even more importantly, this is done in the context of them already being seen as fallen. That is key.

Your point regarding the confessions seems to be based upon the premise that choosing from fallen humanity is not simply unique to the infra position but also contrary to a supra position.

Coupled with that you also note:

The “supra” position thinks of election and reprobation apart from the fall: God first decided to create some people for glory and others for perdition, prior to planning the history of the world (including fall and salvation).​

In other words, your position appears to be that the infra position is confessional because only an infra position posits that God elected out of fallen humanity and that supralapsarianism is contrary to that notion.

What’s interesting is that given the many problems with the infra position (as well as any perceived difficulties of perhaps the most common supra construct), there are notable supralapsarians who have placed in the first position the election in Christ of sinful men. These theologians were clearly supra for they held to the the unifying principle for any supra position, namely that creation serves redemption, which is contrary to the infra position. (See infra, Charles Hodge)

 

[timfost]

I'm with Daniel in that I don't consider myself either supra or infra, though admittedly I favor the general terminology of the infra. Remember, it is a strictly logical sequence that does not really help us understand God's "thought process" since He is not bound by time.

And because I cannot resist quoting Bavinck on this...

"In the fourth place, both supra and infra err when they regard the various elements of the decree as standing in subordinate relation to each other. Now it is true, of course, that the means are subordinate to the final end in view, but from this it does not follow that they are subordinate to one another. Creation is not a mere means toward the fall, neither is the fall a mere means toward grace and perseverance, nor are these in turn merely means toward salvation and perdition. We should never lose sight of the fact that the decrees are as rich in content as the entire history of the universe, for the latter is the unfoldment of the former. The history of the universe can never be made to fit into a little scheme of logic."

 

[User20004000]

I'm with Daniel in that I don't consider myself either supra or infra, though admittedly I favor the general terminology of the infra. Remember, it is a strictly logical sequence that does not really help us understand God's "thought process" since He is not bound by time.

And because I cannot resist quoting Bavinck on this...

"In the fourth place, both supra and infra err when they regard the various elements of the decree as standing in subordinate relation to each other. Now it is true, of course, that the means are subordinate to the final end in view, but from this it does not follow that they are subordinate to one another. Creation is not a mere means toward the fall, neither is the fall a mere means toward grace and perseverance, nor are these in turn merely means toward salvation and perdition. We should never lose sight of the fact that the decrees are as rich in content as the entire history of the universe, for the latter is the unfoldment of the former. The history of the universe can never be made to fit into a little scheme of logic."

I’d humbly recommend Reymond on this, as he relates the subject to teleological principles.

 

[Pergamum]

I'm with Daniel in that I don't consider myself either supra or infra, though admittedly I favor the general terminology of the infra. Remember, it is a strictly logical sequence that does not really help us understand God's "thought process" since He is not bound by time.

And because I cannot resist quoting Bavinck on this...

"In the fourth place, both supra and infra err when they regard the various elements of the decree as standing in subordinate relation to each other. Now it is true, of course, that the means are subordinate to the final end in view, but from this it does not follow that they are subordinate to one another. Creation is not a mere means toward the fall, neither is the fall a mere means toward grace and perseverance, nor are these in turn merely means toward salvation and perdition. We should never lose sight of the fact that the decrees are as rich in content as the entire history of the universe, for the latter is the unfoldment of the former. The history of the universe can never be made to fit into a little scheme of logic."

Outstanding quote!