Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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...
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.
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
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
I found this poll/thread very unhelpful so I refrained from voting, but it might be worth a look anyway.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/where-you-calvinism-chart-20840/
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?
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?
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.
Wow. So this is a confusing issue.
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.
Wow. So this is a confusing issue.
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."
In his commentary on Romans 9 he makes the decree to be to damn on account of sin.