Are you infra or supra and why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
One quick question are we dealing with the supra as webmaster put forward on page one or the one put forward by Bruce on Page 2?

Recap of Reymond via Bruce:

1. The election of some sinners to salvation in Christ; the
reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind.
2. The application of the redemptive work of Christ to the elect
sinners.
3. The redemption of the elect sinners by the work of Christ.
4. The fall of man.
5. The creation of the world and man.

CT
 
I am kind of both.I believe God ordained the fall to happen and when it happened he chose out of the lump who would be saved and put away the rest.

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Remember that the verse is saying of THE SAME LUMP.I`d say that means the lost lump.After reading the whole chapter it seems to be refering to man in his lost state and who God would choose for salvation or use for God`s other purposes.

I may be wrong.Of course either way God is glorified!

[Edited on 12-2-2004 by Average Joey]
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
I was reading Bavink and he said both are false.

Where exactly does he say this? I am not doubting that he did, but am interested in finding various sources, especially those who are in disagreement with my current view.

CT
 
Perhaps to clarify somethings here. The decree to reprobate is not the same as condemnation. Reprobation is God's sovereign choice to reject some. Condemnation is God ruling in regards to sin. So as one who leans supra, I have know problem saying, you will go to hell because of your sins. You stand condemned and responsible for your actions. Because God soveriegnly rejected them, it has no bearing on whether they are responsible for their actions, which is why they are condemned and sent to hell. They have meritted the wrath of God regardless of the eternal decree. The objections raised against supra thus far are the same that Arminians raise against all Calvinists. And I think the response is the same as well.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Perhaps to clarify somethings here. The decree to reprobate is not the same as condemnation. Reprobation is God's sovereign choice to reject some. Condemnation is God ruling in regards to sin. So as one who leans supra, I have know problem saying, you will go to hell because of your sins. You stand condemned and responsible for your actions. Because God soveriegnly rejected them, it has no bearing on whether they are responsible for their actions, which is why they are condemned and sent to hell. They have meritted the wrath of God regardless of the eternal decree. The objections raised against supra thus far are the same that Arminians raise against all Calvinists. And I think the response is the same as well.

Patrick,

You are begging the question. Reject to what? Hell, is the obvious answer. Reprobation is the consignment to eternal punishment of a certain portion of the human race (not contemplated as individuals in the supra scheme)
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
The objections raised against supra thus far are the same that Arminians raise against all Calvinists. And I think the response is the same as well.

Actually, they're not. I could care less about man's free will in the face of God's sovereignty. I am concerned for God's justice. God judges sin, He does not judge men apart from sin and then provide for sin to allow judgment.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by puritansailor
Perhaps to clarify somethings here. The decree to reprobate is not the same as condemnation. Reprobation is God's sovereign choice to reject some. Condemnation is God ruling in regards to sin. So as one who leans supra, I have know problem saying, you will go to hell because of your sins. You stand condemned and responsible for your actions. Because God soveriegnly rejected them, it has no bearing on whether they are responsible for their actions, which is why they are condemned and sent to hell. They have meritted the wrath of God regardless of the eternal decree. The objections raised against supra thus far are the same that Arminians raise against all Calvinists. And I think the response is the same as well.

Patrick,

You are begging the question. Reject to what? Hell, is the obvious answer. Reprobation is the consignment to eternal punishment of a certain portion of the human race (not contemplated as individuals in the supra scheme)

I don't hold to the traditional supra scheme. If I had to pick one it would be Reymond's formulation.

As I understand it, God soveriegnly rejects to make them His people and withholds His favor. Reprobation/election is a soveriegn decree made in His good pleasure, not grounded upon the actions of men. But condemnation is grounded upon man's sin, in which he merits hell.
 
Infra definitely, not just because of what has been mentioned as far as God's justice, but because of covenant. The Edenic Covenant has a certain advantage point inherent in it. It's Paradise. The New Heavens and Earth are Paradise Restored. The Edenic Covenant is a Blueprint for dominion. Before the fall, God had a plan laid in this covenant. Yes, God knew Adam would fall, but this Covenant is there for a reason. Infralapsarianism is implied in the creation order.
 
Are there any advantges to sharing the gospel from a Supra position? Could being a Supra robbed you of the Love of God and diminish the atonement of Christ? ...

This are some of the questions that come into my mind of why I am not a Supra...

Yours in Christ
Infralap
 
Originally posted by Infralap
Are there any advantges to sharing the gospel from a Supra position? Could being a Supra robbed you of the Love of God and diminish the atonement of Christ? ...

This are some of the questions that come into my mind of why I am not a Supra...

Yours in Christ
Infralap

I agree.It`s just like the whole Calvinist belief.Maybe it is not good to walk up to someone and say God has chosen you.Feed the babes with milk before moving on with meat.
 
Focusing on election is getting slightly off topic, but beside the fact that the argument above seems rather a non sequiter,
as well as ad ignorantum (i.e. "I'm not a supra, therefore if I was, I think I'd lose my percieved infra-adantages, have a low view of the atonement, etc."),
it's just not true that election is an "adult" doctrine.

Paul opens his first letter to the Thessalonians--a church he founded in less than a month, had to flee from, and wrote back to within a couple months probably--with the language of predestination. And he accompanies it with ZERO explanation. Its as if he expects these elementary Christians to understand what he means with but a little reflection on his brief stay with them (note the language of recollection in that first chapter).

In other words, its a safe inference that election and predestination form an essential part of Paul's basic gospel presentation. Election certainly isn't a difficult doctrine to understand. What's hard for most sinners is accepting it as TRUTH. The doctrine of election is the consumate attack on human pride, and as such ought to be used from the beginning. Breaking up PRIDE'S seat only gets harder where it settles back comfortably into the new believer's life. Isn't this true in your experience?

Also, what is hard is practicing this whole gospel with a Christian combination of boldness and humility. So, really, the doctrine of election is hard on US, because it demands that we not soft-pedal the gospel's intrinsic offense in any way, and still be as personally inoffensive and unassuming as possible.

(And finally, as I said above, I'm a one-decree man myself--to me, infra and supra are only different ways of looking at the matter..)
 
[/quote]

I agree.It`s just like the whole Calvinist belief.Maybe it is not good to walk up to someone and say God has chosen you.Feed the babes with milk before moving on with meat. [/quote]

I think that we both agree that we need to feed according to their position... i.e. if not born again, then they are not even babes, thus even milk might not be recomended. If babes in Christ! Then we need the stages just like the food we give our children (having 3 kids I feel like an expert, altough a good friend of mine has 12) first the milk, then the baby food in stages, etc... and Yes in a lifetime of a christian uis to grow into meats... but they are more than one, so is our focus not to let them choke like God did in the old Testament when He gave them meat to eat and they die in Zeal, afections. Because "A brother ofended is hard to win"
 
Originally posted by bigheavyq
Infra definitely, not just because of what has been mentioned as far as God's justice, but because of covenant. The Edenic Covenant has a certain advantage point inherent in it. It's Paradise. The New Heavens and Earth are Paradise Restored. The Edenic Covenant is a Blueprint for dominion. Before the fall, God had a plan laid in this covenant. Yes, God knew Adam would fall, but this Covenant is there for a reason. Infralapsarianism is implied in the creation order.
That covenant was made in that manner so that Christ could fulfill all righteousness for us where Adam failed to do so.
 
Originally posted by Infralap
Are there any advantges to sharing the gospel from a Supra position? Could being a Supra robbed you of the Love of God and diminish the atonement of Christ? ...

This are some of the questions that come into my mind of why I am not a Supra...

Yours in Christ
Infralap
Being Supra never stopped Rutherford, Bunyan, Twisse, or Love from sharing the gospel.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Infralap
Are there any advantges to sharing the gospel from a Supra position? Could being a Supra robbed you of the Love of God and diminish the atonement of Christ? ...

This are some of the questions that come into my mind of why I am not a Supra...

Yours in Christ
Infralap
Being Supra never stopped Rutherford, Bunyan, Twisse, or Love from sharing the gospel.

Yes, and that blessed inconsistency (which happily describes most supralapsarians) is what makes this issue not so important.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by bigheavyq
Infra definitely, not just because of what has been mentioned as far as God's justice, but because of covenant. The Edenic Covenant has a certain advantage point inherent in it. It's Paradise. The New Heavens and Earth are Paradise Restored. The Edenic Covenant is a Blueprint for dominion. Before the fall, God had a plan laid in this covenant. Yes, God knew Adam would fall, but this Covenant is there for a reason. Infralapsarianism is implied in the creation order.
That covenant was made in that manner so that Christ could fulfill all righteousness for us where Adam failed to do so.

I understand and agree with federal theology here. However in looking at the edenic covenant their is much more to glean here and because of that infralapsarianism much be the case
 
Huh?
scratchhead.gif
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by puritansailor

Being Supra never stopped Rutherford, Bunyan, Twisse, or Love from sharing the gospel.

Yes, and that blessed inconsistency (which happily describes most supralapsarians) is what makes this issue not so important.

Fred, I'm not sure why you believe they were being inconsistent. Could you explain? Thanks! Oh, and PuritanSailor forgot to add Beza, Gomarus, Perkins, Voetus, and Witsius.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
It is my contention that the Confession is implicitly infra. (By the way, that is Derek Thomas' position as well)

This is true:

(quote from http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/salvatio.htm)
This whole issue was hotly debated throughout the Westminster Assembly. William Twisse, an ardent supralapsarian and chairman of the Assembly, ably defended his view. But the Assembly opted for language that clearly favors the infra position, yet without condemning supralapsarianism.

[Edited on 13-12-2004 by RickyReformed]
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Thanks for the link Ricky. I agree with the author's take on Reymond as well.

Your welcome! The author is Phillip R. Johnson (the other Phillip Johnson, as the author refers to himself.)

[Edited on 13-12-2004 by RickyReformed]
 
Fred, I hate to resurrect an old topic, but I was hoping you would explain why being a "consistent" supra would prevent someone from sharing the gospel.

For what it's worth, If someone wants to say that Reymond's modified supralapsarianism is inherently infralapsarian (see Phil Johnson's comment in the link that Fred is referring to), I don't have a problem with that.

My objection is more properly directed at those who insist that God's decree of reprobation is passive, rather than active.
 
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


From another one of my posts:
I would appreciate some opinion on J.V. Fesko's "Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition". Is it historically accurate as to who held what views? Are there any points in it that need to be corrected?
I ask because his statement that Calvin was supra contradicts what I have read elsewhere. I have read somewhere that Turretin defended Calvin as implicitly infra, and Phil Johnson says the debate was not in Calvin's time. What is the truth about Calvin on this? What view did he hold, implicitly or explicitly? And I am confused as to how one can hold to "single" predestination and still be infra- as he states Augustine does. I thought double predestination was an inherently reformed aspect of supra and infra.
 
I am a "modified" supralapsarian. I believe it takes care of all of the charges the infralapsarians pose to the traditional "supra" AND is the only position based upon logical reasoning.

:D
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I am a "modified" supralapsarian. I believe it takes care of all of the charges the infralapsarians pose to the traditional "supra" AND is the only position based upon logical reasoning.

:D

Modified in what way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top