A.W. Pink & Supralapsarianism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matthew1344

Puritan Board Freshman
I heard Pink was for supralapsarianism. But doesnt this go against that? Or do I have a wrong understanding of supralapsarianism?

"First, the doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God purposed to take innocent creatures, make them wicked, and then damn them. Scripture says, "God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions" (Eccl. 7:29). God has not created sinful creatures in order to destroy them, for God is not to be charged with the sin of His creatures. The responsibility and criminality is man’s."

I do hold that God is not responsible... we are. God decreed it. We are responsible.

I just thought that supralapsarianism was saying that God soverignly decrees whatever he pleases and then it happens. God is in control, humans are responsible.

Does Pink's statement go against this?:

SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)—vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)—were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained. In other words, supralapsarianism suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam's fall—so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice.
 

Matthew1344

Puritan Board Freshman
I guess this is what confuses me...
Doesnt this:

"First, the doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God purposed to take innocent creatures, make them wicked, and then damn them." -Pink

Contradict this:

Supralapsarianism
1)Elect some, reprobate rest
2)Create
3)Permit Fall
4)Provide salvation for elect
5)Call elect to salvation

What am i missing?
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
I'm not sure what you're missing but there are many hopefully helpful threads on this subject on the PB if you look for them.

I've not really "got my head round" the infra/supra debate. You also have to take into account the views of the likes of Robert Lewis Dabney that the whole debate is wrong-headed because the divine mind logically perceives the whole plan at once with all its inter-relations and knows immediately the perfect plan without moving from one part to the other.

I'm also puzzled as to why the decree that God would glorify Himself by forever becoming Man and by dying for His people is left out, as I would have thought that that would be central, and the element around which everything else found its raison d'etre.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 

Matthew1344

Puritan Board Freshman
Yeah maybe God glorifying himself would be number one :) then all the others. But I also understand the Dabney stance! And I wanna say "right on Dabney! That makes total sense" but then I have to ask myself "what about unconditional election?"

It talks about,in eternity (that's when God decreed things) before the foundation of the world, he elected Jacob before good or bad. "Before" in eternity? That makes no sense ??? So is there a sequence or not?

I'm glad I'm not the only one confused
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism: Practical Implications seems to be a good thread from 2009.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top