I?m not being nasty or short or anything like that. I would have posted this over at Theologica but for some reason it keeps saying that I’m a spanner. Basically, I’m nitpicking. Rebecca’s criticisms against other systems consisted of perceptions from outside the camp (ie: Armyraldism being untidy). That’s fine since it’s what she perceives about those systems. Perceptions from outside this particular camp (Infralapsarianism-ists) have raised an objection.
With little posting time I’ll draw a big, charcoal circle. With a rough stick I’ll label it “sinners”. Inside of it I’ll draw a smooth circle named “Those Who God chose to redeem, work faith in and save.”
This subset of sinners will be saved because God chose to save them. Now if Christ decided to up and not die on the cross (which the Bible seems to imply it was possible) these people who God chose to redeem, work faith in and save would still be redeemed, have faith worked in and be saved. Christ’s death is then (forgive me) not necessary for their redemption, working of faith and salvation…only God’s eternal decree. That reduces the importance of Christ’s death.
Is Christ’s work in death important? His incarnation has importance in the light of Scripture as does His testimony in revealing the Father. His blood though has sanctifying importance, His death has importance with the work of the Holy Spirit, His death also made His resurrection an active possibility therein finally authenticating Him as the Christ. His death and resurrection led to his leaving–His words promised His return. His death and overturned judgment gives Him a unique role as judge and the list goes on. At one point summarised as salvation in no other name but that one who was rejected and killed…that’s right: Christ Jesus.
How about the rest? Sinners are important because you can’t save them without them. God’s choice is important because without it you wouldn’t have a whole lot of other things either. So that part of Infralapsarianism has some good stuff.
I could just be wrong. Maybe there’s a decree in there that Christ would die no matter what: but then those passages where Christ submits become something akin to (forgive me) coercion. Perhaps the system has a decree that says God’s eternal choice is forever tied into a later choice of the Christ: A man. That would make God’s choice dependant on later historical action: something that the system doesn’t seem to want.
Like I said, it’s a nitpick but I think it’s just as valid.