speratus said:
From the articles, I take it that all Reformed Creeds explicitly reject Supralapsarianism? Yet, the dominant Infralapsarian party is content to welcome the Supralapsarians whom I suppose take formal exception to the Infralapsarian articles of the Creeds? This seems odd to me. If these doctrines are adiaphora, why are they even included in the Reformed Creeds?

1) Your first assumption is incorrect. Most of the Reformed Confessions do not explicitly reject Supralapsarianism. FYI, the body of men which made up the Westminster Assembly who voted on the WCF, WSC and WLC, consisted of those who held to both views although the supras were a minority. Remember now, Confessions were never meant to be a full-blown Systematic Theology, but rather a summary of the basic truths of the Christian faith. Thus you will not find a definitive statement in regard to the logical order of the decree(s). The Canons of Dordt even hint at Supralapsarianism, more so that the WCF.

2)Nowhere will you find a Calvinist consign this issue to the realm of Adiaphora. It's simply one of those doctrines which is "deduced" and thus open to disagreement. Both sides are in full agreement as to the "telos" of God's foreordination and the subjects included. Indeed, there are definite ramifications for both views when pushed, e.g., it is not uncommon for those who held to Supralapsarianism to fall into hyper-Calvinism. Fortunately, this is not the case with all but only some.

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]