The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - Questions about Low Calvinism and Lapsarianism

packabacka · #6 (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neogillist

If an Arminian asks you how God can require saving faith from people when they are unable to exercise it, you may reply that under the covenant of works, prior to the fall of mankind, there was nothing that could prevent Adam from believing in the second head of the trinity and obeying the moral law perfectly. Now although through the fall man lost both of these abilities, God has not lost His authority to require from man what he owes Him. Consequently man is still responsible to repent and believe. Besides, the reprobates still have an ability to exercise a historical faith in Christ and an outward, legal repentance; yet many are too hardened to do this little bit that they are still able to do through God's common grace.

Quote:

In regard to God's universal love, low calvinists will say yes, high calvinists will say no. It may be said that God loves all his creatures as creatures, and that he is good to all, even the worse of devils (as Jesus allowed a legion to go into a herd of pigs), and even the worse of reprobates (like king Ahab). Jesus also loved the rich young ruler, but this does not mean that God the Father loved them with an everlasting love and had purposed to save them.

For the record, when I say that I believe that God loves everybody, I don't mean necessarily that He wants all to come to repentance (although, I haven't ruled that out; I still need to do some work to refine that part of my beliefs). Further, I never really thought about this until you brought up the distinction between the Father's love and Jesus's love, but it is theologically tenable for the Father and the Son to have different feelings toward the same object?

Quote:

Beside, when semi-Pelagians/Arminians use John 3:16 to teach that God loves everybody soooo muchhhh, they err since they are merely making an emotional appeal to people. Their approach basically appeals to man's self-love and self-worth and fails to deal with man's sinfulness. You should read Jonathan Edwards "A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections." It's an excellent classic which shows how people can mislead themselves in hypocrisy over a conversion experience, and think that they are saved when they totally aren't.

I remember doing an exegesis on the passage and really coming to terms with the "entire world" bit. I really need to write these things down...

Thanks for the book rec though; I'll add that to my list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neogillist

I think you misunderstand both types of lapsarianism. Neither systems teach that God had one idea in mind before the next; whether he had in mind to first create man and secondly to allow the fall and so on, but rather each system attempts to order the decrees in a logical fashion. That is, did God elect some men considering them as fallen beings, or as neutral beings? If you say that God elects some man from a sinful, fallen mass of mankind (called the corrupt mass), with consideration to sinfulness but without consideration good deeds, then you are infra. If you say that God elects from a "pure mass of mankind" without consideration to either good or evil deeds, (thus viewing man as a neutral being), then you are supra. I personally lean more towards the infra view, but both are valuable and acceptable view. However, Roman Catholicism says that God elects with consideration to both good and evil deeds, and Arminianism teaches that God elects with consideration to forseen faith, which in itself is a good deed. So you see that either infra or supralapsarianism are biblical, but the other two views are not.

Now that's what I was wanting to hear! Thanks for correcting me. I figured that I had not just easily dismissed such an essential part of biblical doctrine...