Replies

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.

Good answer. Very good, and very respectable.

But don't you think that, in some cases, the Romanists have deliberately chosen not to be precise -- when the Core Text (that is, the Bible) would (according to the Reformers) seem to demand as much?

(Basically, what I'm getting at is the fact that the Predestinarian Augustinians have pretty much kicked the arse of the free-will Molinists -- so shouldn't Rome get back to Augustine, and admit it?)

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.

You are a good Reformed Christian, jude.

Whatever your own personal doubts or eccentricities, you have agreed to Covenant yourself to the authority of your Elders, and the Church Councils over-arching them. This is to your Credit.

Our Reformed system of Elder-Conciliar Government is based upon the Scriptural way of doing things, and is thus commensurate with the Biblical Order, and that of the Eastern Orthodox (as opposed to the Anabaptistic error of Independency, or the Romanist error of Papacy).

HOWEVER, I would reserve this -- while we have always permitted the Supralapsarians to enjoy Communion within our Confession, it is not We Infralapsarians who are seeking "foolish controversy that serves no purpose but to divide". OURS is the Established Reformed Tradition, confirmed by our Reformed Councils and the magisterial teaching of our great Reformed Pastors. We permit the Supralapsarians to enjoy participation in the great Reformed Communion -- in loving Charity; until, by the Grace of God, their Error is Corrected.

Best, OP

Calvin was a supralapsarian.

Nothing precedes God's awareness of His own creation.

"The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand" John Calvin -- (Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.xxiii.7)