Doc... you are right. The Christian Fathers of a bygone era were more concerned with Truth than with Accomodation; which is the only reason that the Ecumenical Councils got as far as they did.
However, I am personally of the belief that the Reformed Councils picked up where the Ecumenical Councils left off; and so I still must say to my Supralapsarian Brethren -- as Absolutist as Calvinism is ("Truth at all Costs; Truth at any Cost"), the Virtue we seek is not Absolutism for its own sake, but in fact Truth for its own sake.
I am happy that, by God's grace, I have helped to introduce so many to the Reformed Doctrines of Christianity ("Today, I am a Fountain Pen!" -- sorry, old Bar Mitzvah joke); but I am deeply saddened that we have lost so many to the Vicissitudes of the Moderators. I am yet more saddened by the fact that some of my brethren have fallen prey to the seeming attractions of "Logical Consistency" offered by the Supralapsarian scheme.
Respectfully, have I ever wilted from embracing Logical Consistency whenever I have perceived any opportunity to reconcile Logic with Scripture? I think I have not.
AND YET, as Dabney so clearly proves in Lecture 21: Dabney On Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian, Supralapsarianism is NOT the more "Logical" theory; and what is infinitely more important, it is not the more SCRIPTURAL theory.
I should gladly embrace the Supralapsarian scheme, were it proven by Scripture; I have no regard whatsoever for Catholic anathemas, nor for Arminian remonstrations. BUT, the Supralapsarian scheme ISN'T proven by Scripture; in fact it is REJECTED.
Having read both Augustine's On Predestination and Dabney's On Supralapsarianism in intensive detail, I am satisfied that Dabney's Negation of Supralapsarianism is, Logically, almost as "Strong" and "Cogent" an Argument as Augustine's Argument against the Pelagians and Massilians.
Dabney DESTROYED Supralapsarianism, (almost) as surely as Augustine destroyed Pelagianism.
This is my own Estimation as a Logician; however, it is possible that I am not a very good Logician. Anyone is welcome to contest me upon my analysis, provided that they maintain an equal open-mindedness to Correction.
Best, OP
Incidentally, Jude... side question to you: Amongst the great traditions of Christendom, would you personally consider the Reformed Tradition to be the most Theologically-Precise? And if so... given that the Reformed Councils have selected Infralapsarianism as the most Scriptural and Logical description of the Order of Predestination -- would you accept their ruling upon the basis of their Conciliar Authority? Or, upon your own personal Agreement? Or would you reserve the right to contest their ruling?
This is a Curiosity Question, I'm not playing "Gotcha". (Actually, I hate that Game; it inhibits discussion).
Best, OP
Precise? No. The most theologically precise tradition of Christendom has got to be the Roman Catholic tradition. As far as I can tell, the Roman Catholics are the only tradition to have tried to have nailed down what is de fide, what is doctrine, what is theologically certain, and what is a common teaching.
Now, as any good scientist will tell you, there is a difference between accuracy and precision. As a Reformed Christian, clearly I believe that the Reformed Tradition - as expressed in the modern incarnations of the Westminster Confession - is the most accurate.
And if so... given that the Reformed Councils have s elected Infralapsarianism as the most Scriptural and Logical description of the Order of Predestination -- would you accept their ruling upon the basis of their Conciliar Authority? Or, upon your own personal Agreement? Or would you reserve the right to contest their ruling?
Yes, yes, and yes. My own understanding of the Infralapsarian/supralapsarian debate is that the question largely hinges on the logical question of in what order God planned the fall and redemption. I know the Canons of Dordt chose infralapsarianism, and it seems to make some sense to me that, in order to plan redemption, there must be something to logically redeem from. But, since this is not an explicitly Biblical doctrine, I see no need to take any firm position. It does no good, really, to major on minor points. At the end of the day, this could very easily become a "foolish contraversy" that serves no purpose but to divide.