High Calvinism and Low Calvinism

Zenas · #1 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 09:11 AM

What's the difference? I read it in a recent thread and I was wondering what the difference between the two was, and what exactly I am...

christianyouth · #2 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:17 AM

If you are on the PB, you are a High Calvinist as a general rule.

A low Calvinist, I think, is one who affirms doctrines such as the 'two wills of God', God's universal love for all creation, God's desire for all to be saved, duty faith, the well meant offer, unlimited & limited aspects of the atonement, and sometimes they also redefine the T by distinguishing between moral/natural ability.

I can't think of a popular teacher who would be considered to be a Low Calvinist, except maybe John Piper.

VirginiaHuguenot · #3 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:22 AM

I found this poll/thread very unhelpful so I refrained from voting, but it might be worth a look anyway.

Where are you on the Calvinism Chart?

AV1611 · #4 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenas

What's the difference? I read it in a recent thread and I was wondering what the difference between the two was, and what exactly I am...

Low Calvinist = infralapsarian
High Calvinist = supralapsarian

According to the infralapsarian view the order of events was as follows: God proposed,

1. to create;
2. to permit the fall;
3. to elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the Devil and the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins;
4. to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was purchased by Christ.

According to the supralapsarian view the order of events was:

1. to elect some creatable men (that is, men who were to be created) to life and to condemn others to destruction;
2. to create;
3. to permit the fall;
4. to send Christ to redeem the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect

The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the fall.

"Unconditional Election: Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism" by Loraine Boettner

Davidius · #5 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christianyouth

If you are on the PB, you are a High Calvinist as a general rule.

A low Calvinist, I think, is one who affirms doctrines such as the 'two wills of God', God's universal love for all creation, God's desire for all to be saved, duty faith, the well meant offer, unlimited & limited aspects of the atonement, and sometimes they also redefine the T by distinguishing between moral/natural ability.

I can't think of a popular teacher who would be considered to be a Low Calvinist, except maybe John Piper.

I thought that many people on this board supported the well meant offer, unlimited/limited aspects of the atonement, and some kind of universal love for all creation.

KenPierce · #6 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenas

What's the difference? I read it in a recent thread and I was wondering what the difference between the two was, and what exactly I am...

Low Calvinist = infralapsarian
High Calvinist = supralapsarian

According to the infralapsarian view the order of events was as follows: God proposed,

1. to create;
2. to permit the fall;
3. to elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the Devil and the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins;
4. to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was purchased by Christ.

According to the supralapsarian view the order of events was:

1. to elect some creatable men (that is, men who were to be created) to life and to condemn others to destruction;
2. to create;
3. to permit the fall;
4. to send Christ to redeem the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect

The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the fall.

"Unconditional Election: Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism" by Loraine Boettner

NOt sure that's right, or that Boettner is right about it.

Always heard that Low Calvinism, so called, was a denial of limited atonement, or 4 pointedness.

As some have been wont to say, "A Low Calvinist is NO Calvinist.

But, a sublapsarian, like Warfield is no no Calvinist!

FenderPriest · #7 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenas

What's the difference? I read it in a recent thread and I was wondering what the difference between the two was, and what exactly I am...

Low Calvinist = infralapsarian
High Calvinist = supralapsarian

According to the infralapsarian view the order of events was as follows: God proposed,

1. to create;
2. to permit the fall;
3. to elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the Devil and the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins;
4. to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was purchased by Christ.

According to the supralapsarian view the order of events was:

1. to elect some creatable men (that is, men who were to be created) to life and to condemn others to destruction;
2. to create;
3. to permit the fall;
4. to send Christ to redeem the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect

The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the fall.

"Unconditional Election: Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism" by Loraine Boettner

It seems to me that if this is the distinction between High and Low that John Piper is actually a High Calvinist as opposed to what is suggested above. Is that correct? I'm basing this off of his affirmation of 7 point Calvinism. Am I off here?

JM · #8 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

I found this poll/thread very unhelpful so I refrained from voting, but it might be worth a look anyway.

Where are you on the Calvinism Chart?

The chart is a good place to start.

Neogillist · #9 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenderPriest

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenas

What's the difference? I read it in a recent thread and I was wondering what the difference between the two was, and what exactly I am...

Low Calvinist = infralapsarian
High Calvinist = supralapsarian

According to the infralapsarian view the order of events was as follows: God proposed,

1. to create;
2. to permit the fall;
3. to elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the Devil and the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins;
4. to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was purchased by Christ.

According to the supralapsarian view the order of events was:

1. to elect some creatable men (that is, men who were to be created) to life and to condemn others to destruction;
2. to create;
3. to permit the fall;
4. to send Christ to redeem the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect

The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the fall.

"Unconditional Election: Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism" by Loraine Boettner

It seems to me that if this is the distinction between High and Low that John Piper is actually a High Calvinist as opposed to what is suggested above. Is that correct? I'm basing this off of his affirmation of 7 point Calvinism. Am I off here?

While it is true that Loraine Boettner calls supralapsarianism high calvinism and infralapsarianism low calvinism, but this is not the historic understanding of it. Dr. Daniel Curt prefers to look at it on a spectrum, like that chart above that could be viewed as a "calvinism thermometer". I don't agree with all their classification for instance, since I know for sure that Gill taught common grace, although he preferred to use the term "providential goodness or kindness". Gill never claims to be a supralapsarian, and both John Rippon and Toplady say that he was infralapsarian, which is what he seems to lean towards, although many say he was a hyper-calvinist. Consequently, you can be an infralapsarian and still be hyper.

In John Piper's seven points of calvinism, he basically proves to be infra because only an infralapsarian can claim to unconditional reprobation. Both the supra and infra distinguish between preterition and pre-damnation, both such a division is unnecessary from the infra view, since God elects from a fallen mass, and also passes over and predamns the remaining corrupt mass of reprobates. In the supra view, however, God elects from the unfallen mass or "pure" mass, but the reprobates remain neutral after preterition, until the fall of the mass is decreed. Consequently, predamnation is conditional upon forseen sin and the fall, and is not applied after the decree of the fall. A supralapsarian must hold to conditional reprobation, or otherwise, he has God condemning innocent men. Loraine Boettner actually misrepresents supralapsarianism as do many low calvinists.

I personally lean towards the infra view, but I view predamnation as parallel to justification, and I reject the well-meant offer as being both unscriptural and illogical although I totally accept common grace.

In general, the high calvinists make better expositors and systematic theologians while the low calvinists make better devotional writers.

AV1611 · #10 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenderPriest

It seems to me that if this is the distinction between High and Low that John Piper is actually a High Calvinist as opposed to what is suggested above. Is that correct? I'm basing this off of his affirmation of 7 point Calvinism. Am I off here?

I am not sure what Piper would be called. In High Calvinists in Action all of the men mentioned would be classed as Hyper-Calvinists. There does seem to be some fluidity in how the terms hyper and high are used. Boettner writes that "By a “high Calvinist” we mean one who holds the supralapsarian view." I see no reason not to go with that definition.

Stephen · #11 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 12:14 PM

I read the poll (which was closed, so you cannot vote) and understand the labels but am not familiar with the term high or low Calvinism. I am familiar with the "old school" and "new school" terms. I classify myself as old school, supralapsarian, and double-predestinarian Calvinist. I deny hyper-Calvinism. I do not like the term "common grace" but I do believe that God's providence extends to both the elect and non-elect. I do not think these categories are that helpful.

JM · #12 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 12:33 PM

John Piper on Limited Atonement

Neogillist · #13 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenderPriest

It seems to me that if this is the distinction between High and Low that John Piper is actually a High Calvinist as opposed to what is suggested above. Is that correct? I'm basing this off of his affirmation of 7 point Calvinism. Am I off here?

I am not sure what Piper would be called. In High Calvinists in Action all of the men mentioned would be classed as Hyper-Calvinists. There does seem to be some fluidity in how the terms hyper and high are used. Boettner writes that "By a “high Calvinist” we mean one who holds the supralapsarian view." I see no reason not to go with that definition.

Well, if you go with that definition, you make John Gill into a low calvinist because he leaned clearly on the infra view. Yet, you consider Gill to be a hyper. So this definition cannot stand. The following is a better definition:

A low calvinist is one who holds to one or more of the following:

1) The well-meant offer.
2) A definite atonement but with some universal aspects (like Charles Hodge).
3) God may "desire" to save the reprobate in some way but has chosen not to (like Piper and John Murray hold).

Most low calvinists also tend to interpret the "universal" passages the same as the Arminians like Rev. 3:20 with Jesus knocking at the door of people's hearts, or 1 Tim. 2:4. If you read Matthew Henry, John Flavel, Jonathan Edwards, C. T. Spurgeon and others, you will see what I mean. They obviously do so for emotional reasons, and so their exegesis tends to be poorer than that of the high calvinists. By the way, John Calvin would be a high calvinist because his exegesis on those passages is generally in line with that of the high calvinists like John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, John Gill, A. W. Pink. In general, I find that high calvinists are usually smarter on their exegesis since they do not let their emotions slip into the context of the passages.

AV1611 · #14 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 01:52 PM

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.)

Zenas · #15 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 02:30 PM

Wow. So this is a confusing issue.

Pilgrim's Progeny · #16 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenas

Wow. So this is a confusing issue.

To add to that you have all the "hide" calvinists as well

.

JM · #17 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neogillist

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenderPriest

It seems to me that if this is the distinction between High and Low that John Piper is actually a High Calvinist as opposed to what is suggested above. Is that correct? I'm basing this off of his affirmation of 7 point Calvinism. Am I off here?

I am not sure what Piper would be called. In High Calvinists in Action all of the men mentioned would be classed as Hyper-Calvinists. There does seem to be some fluidity in how the terms hyper and high are used. Boettner writes that "By a “high Calvinist” we mean one who holds the supralapsarian view." I see no reason not to go with that definition.

Well, if you go with that definition, you make John Gill into a low calvinist because he leaned clearly on the infra view. Yet, you consider Gill to be a hyper. So this definition cannot stand. The following is a better definition:

A low calvinist is one who holds to one or more of the following:

1) The well-meant offer.
2) A definite atonement but with some universal aspects (like Charles Hodge).
3) God may "desire" to save the reprobate in some way but has chosen not to (like Piper and John Murray hold).

Most low calvinists also tend to interpret the "universal" passages the same as the Arminians like Rev. 3:20 with Jesus knocking at the door of people's hearts, or 1 Tim. 2:4. If you read Matthew Henry, John Flavel, Jonathan Edwards, C. T. Spurgeon and others, you will see what I mean. They obviously do so for emotional reasons, and so their exegesis tends to be poorer than that of the high calvinists. By the way, John Calvin would be a high calvinist because his exegesis on those passages is generally in line with that of the high calvinists like John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, John Gill, A. W. Pink. In general, I find that high calvinists are usually smarter on their exegesis since they do not let their emotions slip into the context of the passages.

Gill argues against any lapsarian scheme but have read that Toplady did claim he was infra: 8. Truth Defendeed Some Doctrines in the Supralapsarian Scheme impartially examined by the Word of God.

Simply_Nikki · #18 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenas

Wow. So this is a confusing issue.

Indeed, I have no idea where I would be placed! Since I believe in the common grace concept but am also supra and believe that the salvation is a well-meant offer, but in the sense that it is well meant that God would declare to all men to repent! He wasn't kidding with the reprobate or any less sincere. I also do believe that Christ's death was sufficient for the elect only simply because that's who God chose to make it sufficient for. But I do understand in the hypothetical sense Christ's death was sufficient for every single sinner on the planet, simply because his death is THAT powerful; nevertheless it was designed only to secure and satisfy the debt of sin of the elect only.

I guess that puts me as a moderately high Calvinist?

Gomarus · #19 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 11:04 PM

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.