The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The impeccability of Christ

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> Sorry, but that is NOT what Infralapsarian teaches.... never has and never will. Both, Supras and Infras hold that the decree of God was made in eternity. The difference between them is the order of that decree; the Supras placing election and reprobation before the Fall and the Infras after the Fall, in order to uphold the justice of God. However the actual outworking of the decree, of necessity followed the decree(s). Where you came up with that summation of the alleged position of Infralapsarianism you only know. But it certainly isn't an accurate one.

Now, fyi, Herman Bavinck is one whom I esteem highly, particularly in his views concerning the eternal decree(s), mainly because he takes a mediating position, seeing the "logic" of the Supralapsarian view but the "reasonableness" of the Infralapsarian view. He holds to neither but both, admittedly a view that is difficult if not impossible to justify. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

For a fuller and more accurate statement of what Bavinck held see here:

1) History of the Doctrine of the Decree of Predestination, by Herman Bavinck
2) Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, by Herman Bavinck

The issue I have raised does no injustice to the verity of God's eternal decree, and His indisputable sovereignty but rather it focuses upon the equal and complementary truth of man's whole responsibility; re: the humanity of the Lord Christ and His role as the second Adam and qualified representative of fallen mankind. If He was not "in all ways as we" in our humanity, including the necessity of choosing good over evil, then He could not have made atonement for sinners. The error, which you are making, IMHO, is that you are pitting two biblical truths against each other instead of giving each equal recognition. The decree made the end sure, but the decree didn't negate the freedom and responsibility given to Adam nor to Christ. (cf. Prov 16:9) This freedom/ability is not owed by fallen men, albeit their are fully responsible to do that which is right. But it was given and owned by Adam and Christ; the first failing and the second succeeding.

Therefore, the question still remains for you to answer, How could the Lord Christ have been a qualified representative of mankind if the ability to transgress the law of God was not possible. If sin was not an option (theoretically), then a machine could have done what He was sent to do. More precisely, the issue is of obedience; the Lord Christ's "active obedience" and not His "passive obedience". This obedience was required and could only have been exercised by a true man. To deny this truth would be to make Him to be nothing more than an automaton.

In His grace,