Are you infra or supra and why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Infra, because I think that the Confession is implicitly infra (I couldn't resist! )

Also, it appears to me to reflect God's electing of existing people, whereas supra contemplates God electing people in abstract.
 
Supra.

Revelation 13:8 (ESV)
. . .and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.


Why did you leave out Sub-lapsarians ? ? ?
 
[quote:74db804861][i:74db804861]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:74db804861]
Supra.

Revelation 13:8 (ESV)
. . .and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.
[/quote:74db804861]

Visi,

How is that verse opposed to infralapsarianism, which posits the election of some before the creation of the world, just not before the decree to create? That verse would only imply the creation of the world (foundations).
 
The distinction between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the logical order of God's eternal decrees, not the timing of election

The logical order according to supra: (predestination - fall)
1. a decree determining the purpose of all things, namely, the revelation of God's virtues; specifically, the revelation of his mercy in the salvation of a definite number of possible men; and the revelation of his justice in the perdition of another definite number of possible men
2. a decree to create the men thus elected and reprobated.
3. a decree to permit them to fall.
4. a decree to provide a Mediator for the elect and through him to justify them, and to condemn the reprobate.
Ps. 115:3; Prov. 16:4; Is. 10:15; 45:9; Jer. 18:6; Matt. 20:15; Rom. 9:17, 19-21

Elect some, reprobate rest
Create
Permit Fall
Provide salvation for elect
Call elect to salvation


The logical order according to infra: (fall - predestination)
1. a decree to create man in holiness and blessedness.
2. a decree to permit man to fall.
3. a decree to elect some out of this fallen multitude and to leave others in their misery.
4. a decree to bring about the salvation of the elect through Christ.
Deut. 7:6-8; Matt. 12:25, 26; John 15:19; Rom. 9:15, 16; Eph. 1:4-12; II Tim. 1:9

Create
Permit Fall
Elect some, pass over the rest
Provide salvation for elect
Call elect to salvation
 
[quote:00ad4587c5][i:00ad4587c5]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:00ad4587c5]
The logical order according to infra: (fall - predestination)
1. a decree to create man in holiness and blessedness.
2. a decree to permit man to fall.
3. a decree to elect some out of this fallen multitude and to leave others in their misery.
4. a decree to bring about the salvation of the elect through Christ.
Deut. 7:6-8; Matt. 12:25, 26; John 15:19; Rom. 9:15, 16; Eph. 1:4-12; II Tim. 1:9
[/quote:00ad4587c5]

Right off the bat I have to admit I know extremely little about this topic, (but that won't keep me from opening my big mouth! :yawn: )

That having been said, the infra- position makes it sound as if God's decree to save the elect was a result of man's action. Am I understanding that correctly?

Ok, now to go read the scripture proofs you posted.

Fred- could you point me to exactly where the WCF is infra. I'm sure that would help me understand this issue much better. Thanks!
 
[quote:bb63947c75]
How is that verse opposed to infralapsarianism, which posits the election of some before the creation of the world, just not before the decree to create? That verse would only imply the creation of the world (foundations).
[/quote:bb63947c75]

I believe the purpose of glorifying the Son is the reason for creation. Therefore it precedes it in the election of those who will be recipients of the redemption, before the creation of those recipients.

But seriously, I will not get too dogmatic over this issue. I still say all these decisions are simultaneous within the mind of God. There really probably is no linear progression at all.

May God forgive me for even speculating about the holy mysteries of His eternal wisdom and knowlegde.
 
I've seen the propositions of supra and infra spelled out slightly differently than Matt did, but the essence is the same.

I'm infra primarily because it doesn't make sense to me that God could logically decree to save when he hadn't even decreed to create! Furthermore, within the idea of being "saved" is the idea that we are being saved from something... and so I fail to see how God could have decreed to save before he had decreed the reason someone would NEED TO BE saved.
 
I think Visigoth is on track -

I dont' think we can think about these positions in a linear fashion. Maybe both are right but in different "senses" (Compound and divided sense?).
 
So how would it relate to the doctrines of Perichoresis ? ? I have not had a chance to read Gregory Nazianzus yet.
 
Infra for me.......

Why would God elect to salvation before He had decreed/permitted the fall? Before the fall was a determined factor there would have been no need for a decree to save the elect.

Phillip
 
[quote:e048154506][i:e048154506]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:e048154506]
I'm down with the Visigoth/Webmaster answer. To me this seems like a "hidden things belong to the Lord" issue.

Paul [/quote:e048154506]

Agreed. Anyone who is willing to make this issue THE issue or an issue to die over usually has abberant theology, or at least a wrong emphasis on matters not clear in the Word.
 
I'm an unsatified supra :) I believe God decreed to save sinful men in Christ, and so decreed everything else to follow (i.e. creation,Fall, etc). But it really is not an important issue. The Bible only mentions one decree :)

Puritan Sailor
 
Am I wrong or is there also a Ultralapsarian view? It seemed to me there were three views and I just wanted a refresher on the matter.
 
I would say supra because I think we should see the order of God decrees telelogically. In others words what was his ultimate purpose, is it not election and reprobation?, whether that be of angels or man.

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by VanVos]
 
Originally posted by pastorway
Infra for me.......

Why would God elect to salvation before He had decreed/permitted the fall? Before the fall was a determined factor there would have been no need for a decree to save the elect.

Phillip

:ditto: and :amen:



I agree with infra, but I like the question about why it matters if the Bible does not speak clearly on this? Just a question.
 
This may be because I'm misunderstanding it, but I don't even see how the supra view makes any sense whatsoever - it essentially says, "God decreed to save sinful men before He declared the Fall." How can he logically not decree the Fall until after decreeing to save people from it?
 
I recommend Robert Reymond work on revised supralapsarianism. I think you can read about it in his book A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

VanVos

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by VanVos]
 
Dabney mentions three views, but one is called Hypothetic Universalist. He doesn't like Supra or Sub. I'll have to find my Hoeksema Reformed Dogmatics sense one of you referenced it.
So is the Hypothetic Scheme Infra? He is referencing Turrettin in criticizing Supra and Sub. I can't make out the reference. It looks weird. It is Loc. 4. Qu. 18 s 5. Does that look correct? Is that on the Puritan Bookshelf Cd's?
I am relearning stuff I have looked at years ago. Just wait till I get to eschatology. I know I landed hard on the Amill side even though my mentor Dr. Blackwood was a Postmill. It's all coming back to me slowly.
Thanks for your Patience, Randy
 
INFRALAPSARIAN, n.
One who ventures to believe that Adam need not have sinned unless he had a mind to -- in opposition to the Supralapsarians, who hold that that luckless person's fall was decreed from the beginning. Infralapsarians are sometimes called Sublapsarians without material effect upon the importance and lucidity of their views about Adam.


Two theologues once, as they wended their way
To chapel, engaged in colloquial fray --
An earnest logomachy, bitter as gall,
Concerning poor Adam and what made him fall.
"'Twas Predestination," cried one -- "for the Lord
Decreed he should fall of his own accord."
"Not so -- 'twas Free will," the other maintained,
"Which led him to choose what the Lord had ordained."
So fierce and so fiery grew the debate
That nothing but bloodshed their dudgeon could sate;
So off flew their cassocks and caps to the ground
And, moved by the spirit, their hands went round.
Ere either had proved his theology right
By winning, or even beginning, the fight,
A gray old professor of Latin came by,
A staff in his hand and a scowl in his eye,
And learning the cause of their quarrel (for still
As they clumsily sparred they disputed with skill
Of foreordination freedom of will)
Cried: "Sirrahs! this reasonless warfare compose:
Atwixt ye's no difference worthy of blows.
The sects ye belong to -- I'm ready to swear
Ye wrongly interpret the names that they bear.
You -- Infralapsarian son of a clown! --
Should only contend that Adam slipped down;
While you -- you Supralapsarian pup! --
Should nothing aver but that Adam slipped up.
It's all the same whether up or down
You slip on a peel of banana brown.
Even Adam analyzed not his blunder,
But thought he had slipped on a peal of thunder!
G.J.


--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
 
How can God logically decree to save men from something before even decreeing the existence of that thing? Am I misunderstanding the Supra view?
 
Chris,
This might help from the "logic" standpoint.
Reymond's reformulated supra-view works something like this (VanVos mentioned his NSTCF above, however RR explained his view in my systematic theology course: Man and Sin, GPTS Winter Term January 2000)

Beginning with the premise: The rational mind works thusly: that which is first in order of execution is last in order of planning. Otherwise I am not thinking logically, or else am behaving randomly (or at least with insufficient forethought).

Example: I wake up this morning and decide to buy a car. I want to buy a car, but in order to do that I need to be at the dealership, with money. But to do that I must get there (with money). But to do that I must stop by a bank. But to do that I must leave my house. But in order to do that I must first get dressed. But in order to do that I must first get out of bed.

Execute the planned steps laid out in reverse order, and you have your car.

With salvation, Reymond begins with this goal: God intends to glorify himself maximally by the election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ. In order to do that he needs to apply the redemptive work of Christ to them. In order to do that he needs to send Christ to redeem (die for) them. In order to do that he needs sinners (decree for the Fall). In order to do that he needs first to create them.

By executing the planned steps laid out in reverse order, God's redemptive plan is achieved.

I started out nothing and became an infra from an historic perception of events, was introduced to Dabney's arguments about the inaptness of the issue (certainly from a dogmatic stance) and agreed and still do essentially with that stance, and Reymond showed me the beauties of the logical approach to the issue. Ultimately we are (as Dabney wisely pointed out) attempting to probe the infinite mind of God here. "Who hath know the mind of the Lord?" We are trying to arrange the ONE DECREE into something we can put our mind around. Humility is definitely in order.
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
With salvation, Reymond begins with this goal: God intends to glorify himself maximally by the election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ.

Yes, Romans 9 and other places imply that God intends to glorifying himself maximally by the doctrine of election. This includes both sides: the election of some men in Christ (displaying mercy and grace) and the election of some men to damnation (displaying wrath). Both of which will manifest the glory of God forever.

Jim
 
If I remember right John H. Gerstner was Infra.
Herman Hoeksema was Supra.
Gordon Clark was Supra but he differed from Hoeksema on the order of decrees.
I have not found a compelling scriptural case to take a position.
 
This may be of help:

Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition: Supra- and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, & Westminster
By John V. Fesko
 
Webmaster (Should I respond to you as Matt?),
Does that book have any response to the logical position in defense of supra given by Bruce.

CT
 
Originally posted by webmaster
This may be of help:

Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition: Supra- and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, & Westminster
By John V. Fesko

I'll have to check this one out. :book2:
 
I'm neither. I'm translapsarian. I believe the Bible presents an equal case for both and that somewhere near the throne of God in eternity, they even out. I'll never have an infra vs supra debate because in one way, BOTH are right and we shouldn't break it down to a false 'this or that' dichotomy.

(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others;
(2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated;
(3) the decree to permit the fall; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.

The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is:
(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race;
(2) the decree to permit the fall;
(3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.

The logical order of the decrees according to translapsarians is:
Deut. 29:29
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top