Logical order of God's decrees: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:27, 23 May 2023

Revision as of 16:31, 23 May 2023

Line 53:

Infralapsarians regarded the Fall as an occasion for election and reprobation, choosing some out of a fallen mass and passing by others. As one would expect from a supralapsarian, Twisse maintained that the Fall did not occasion election or reprobation. But he also did not believe that the gulf between infra- and supralapsarians was that extensive, thus stating that the differences between the two was “meerely Logicall."<ref>{{harvnb|Twisse|1653|loc=i. 4}}</ref> Although he did not believe that the Fall occasioned election and reprobation, he did not maintain that election and reprobation had no regard for the Fall whatsoever.

He cited from [[Thomas Aquinas]] repeatedly to the effect that “reprobation includeth the will of God of permitting sin, and of inferring damnation for sin.”<ref>{{harvnb|Twisse|1631|p=305}}</ref> Concomitant to this, he claimed that “God neither damnes nor decrees to damne any man, but for sinne and finall perseverance therein”.<ref>{{harvnb|Twisse|1653|loc=i. 34}}</ref>

It may seem that Twisse was performing double-talk at this point as a supralapsarian, but Twisse himself maintained that “not one of our divines, that I know, doth maintaine that God did ever purpose to inflict damnation, but for sin."<ref>{{harvnb|Twisse|1653|loc=i. 14}}</ref> What needs to be made clear at this point is that Twisse did not separate the object decreed from how it is that it comes to pass (modus res) and on the flip side, that the one divine decree had several elements each with its own integrity. The decree is unconditional and will be fulfilled accordingly, but fulfillment does not carry the same means in each object within the one decree: differing objects within the decree have differing modes of agency and thus differing modes of fulfillment.