Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611  Quote:
Originally Posted by Neogillist Well, if you go with that definition, you make John Gill into a low calvinist because he leaned clearly on the infra view. | Gill is quite clearly in the supralapsarian camp.
"And here is the proper place to discuss that question, Whether men were considered, in the mind of God, in the decree of election, as fallen or unfallen; as in the corrupt mass, through the fall; or in the pure mass of creatureship, previous to it; and as to be created? There are some that think that the latter, so considered, were the objects of election in the divine mind; who are called supralapsarians; though of these some are of opinion that man was considered, as to be created, or creatable; and others, as created, but not fallen. The former seems best; that of the vast number of individuals that came up in the divine mind, that his power could create, those that he meant to bring into being, he designed to glorify himself by them in some way or another; the decrees of election, respecting any part of them; may be distinguished into the decree of the end, and the decree of the means." ( 2. Of the Special Decrees of God, Relating to Rational Creatures, Angels, and Men; and Particularly of Election.) |
The above by Gill is followed by this in the same place:
"Dr. Twiss, who was as great a supralapsarian as perhaps ever was, and carried things as high as any man ever did, and as closely studied the point, and as well understood it, and perhaps better than anyone did, and yet he confesses that it was only "apex logicus", a point in logic; and that the difference only lay in the ordering and ranging the decrees of God:
and, for my own part, l think both may be taken in; that in the decree of the end, the ultimate end, the glory of God, for which he does all things, men might be considered in the divine mind as createable, not yet created and fallen; and that in the decree of the means, which, among other things, takes in the mediation of Christ, redemption by him, and the sanctification of the Spirit; they might be considered as created, fallen, and sinful, which these things imply; nor does this suppose separate acts and decrees in God, or any priority and posteriority in them; which in God are but one and together; but our finite minds are obliged to consider them one after another, not being able to take them in together and at once."
The first quote has Gill explaining aspects of the supra view, not claiming it as his own. The second quote seems to better reflect his view as accepting aspects of both supra- and infra- in distingushing the decree concerning the end from the decree concerning the means, all of course part of the single divine decree.
