Infralapsarian/Supralapsarianism

Status
Not open for further replies.

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
I think Theodore Beza, William Perkins, William Twisse, Thomas Goodwin and Geerhardus Vos were among some well-known supralapsarian non-hyper-Calvinistic theologians.

Phillip Johnson says:

All the major Reformed Creeds are either explicitly infralapsarian, or else they carefully avoid language that favors either view. No major creed takes the supra position. (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.)
...
Infralapsarianism was affirmed by the synod of Dordt but only implied in the Westminster standards. Twisse, a supralapsarian, was the first president of the Westminster Assembly, which evidently decided the wisest course was to ignore the controversy altogether (though Westminster's bias was arguably infralapsarian) . The Westminster Confession, therefore, along with most of the Reformed Creeds, implicitly affirmed what the Synod of Utrecht (1905) would later explicitly declare: "That our confessions, certainly with respect to the doctrine of election, follow the infralapsarian presentation, [but] this does not at all imply an exclusion or condemnation of the supralapsarian presentation."
...
Supralapsarianism is also sometimes wrongly equated with hyper-Calvinism. All hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians, though not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists.
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Gordon Clark and Robert Reymond (along with Hoeksema) defended what is called "modified" supralapsarianism, which is what I believe.
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Berkhof also lists the following as Supralapsarians:

Franciscus Gomarus
Peter Martyr
Jerome Zanchius
Zacharias Ursinus
Jacobus Trigland
Gijsbert Voetius
Burmannus
Herman Witsius
Alexander Comrie
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Phillip Johnson says:

All the major Reformed Creeds are either explicitly infralapsarian, or else they carefully avoid language that favors either view. No major creed takes the supra position. (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.)
...
Infralapsarianism was affirmed by the synod of Dordt but only implied in the Westminster standards. Twisse, a supralapsarian, was the first president of the Westminster Assembly, which evidently decided the wisest course was to ignore the controversy altogether (though Westminster's bias was arguably infralapsarian) . The Westminster Confession, therefore, along with most of the Reformed Creeds, implicitly affirmed what the Synod of Utrecht (1905) would later explicitly declare: "That our confessions, certainly with respect to the doctrine of election, follow the infralapsarian presentation, [but] this does not at all imply an exclusion or condemnation of the supralapsarian presentation."
...
Supralapsarianism is also sometimes wrongly equated with hyper-Calvinism. All hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians, though not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists.
:up:
 

Dan Dufek

Inactive User
I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.
Now that is funny!!
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.
What does an almost Arminian look like?
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.
Actually, while it has been rightly noted that not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinistic, I would say that someone believing that infralapsarians even approach Arminianism is a possible indication that that person's supralapsarianism very well may be approaching hyper-Calvinism.

I'm honestly curious to hear more specifically what problems you have with the infra position, especially of a nature to make it seem to even imply an Arminian-esque mindset on the nature of God's decrees.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.
What does an almost Arminian look like?
I guess a Westminster Divine. (Or John Calvin)
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
The only order I see if what Ephesians 1 and 2 details. God has chosen us in Him from before the foundation of the world and we being dead in sins were quickened....
But what did He choose us from? Was it in light of our deadness in sins (already decreed by Him), or did He just choose to save some and condemn some without regard to sin, and then ordain the Fall as a means to justify the condemnation He had ordained?

As I see it, only the infra position does full justice to the biblical place of sin and its relationship to condemnation, and thus to God's justice in an ultimate sense as well.
 

Dan Dufek

Inactive User
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.
Now that is funny!!
I am not certain what you found funny, but I am glad I could provide some levity.
 

Dan Dufek

Inactive User
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.
What does an almost Arminian look like?
I guess a Westminster Divine. (Or John Calvin)


Arminian is the sense of the overemphasis of the permissive will of God based on brute foreknowledge, rather than the fall being planned.
 

Dan Dufek

Inactive User
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.
What does an almost Arminian look like?
I guess a Westminster Divine. (Or John Calvin)

Arminius didn't take issue with Calvin, his issue was with the Supralapsarians, which of course spawned the remonstrance by Arminius and his followers. What is the difference between election from fallen man and foreseen faith? Both are based on Actual sin as opposed to Original sin, because you are dealing with man that has fallen already.
 

Dan Dufek

Inactive User
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Didn't Robert L. Dabney refer to this whole thing as a "Useless controversy"?


To try to place the logical decrees of God in a sequential order seems a little difficult. Gee, what occurred to God first...?


Am I a wienie for purposely not categorizing myself.

The only order I see if what Ephesians 1 and 2 details. God has chosen us in Him from before the foundation of the world and we being dead in sins were quickened....

Were you dead in Actual or Original sin?
 

Dan Dufek

Inactive User
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
The only order I see if what Ephesians 1 and 2 details. God has chosen us in Him from before the foundation of the world and we being dead in sins were quickened....
But what did He choose us from? Was it in light of our deadness in sins (already decreed by Him), or did He just choose to save some and condemn some without regard to sin, and then ordain the Fall as a means to justify the condemnation He had ordained?

As I see it, only the infra position does full justice to the biblical place of sin and its relationship to condemnation, and thus to God's justice in an ultimate sense as well.

How does the Infra position do full justice to the biblical place of sin?
Can you explain the origin of sin in relation to God's justice based on the infra position?

In light of being dead in sin, is this Actual or Original sin?
 

Dan Dufek

Inactive User
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Are we dead in actual or original sin?


Dan:


We are "organically corrupted", born dead from birth. Spiritual stillbirths.

How are you tying this question into the order of the decrees?




Here is a related question (and perhaps this is a deviation from the topic- sorry...maybe this ought to be anew thread).

Which are we judged for? Does anyone ever go to hell for original sin, or for actual sin? I am asking this honestly. It appears that God would be just to punish for original sin - but does he ever do so? Romans 1-3 speaks of the world being guilty through actual sin.




Here's another question (this one is on topic);

Did God Elect us out of a lump of depraved humanity (infra) or did he say, "this one goes to heaven...and this one goes to hell.....this one goes to heaven, this one goes to hell..." without the prior preconditionof the Fall?

This would certainly stress God's sovereingty, but does it injure God's justice? God has the right to do with His creation what he pleases, but does He please to punish apart from our sin?

Actual sin would refer to God looking "down through the corridors of time" basing election on foreknowledge rather than on his purpose of election.

As for judgment, I believe that scripture teaches that original sin condemns. Once a person is born they are born on equal footing so to speak as Adam. This was Jonathan Edward's view and it makes sense to me. The actual sin argument was fairly well developed by the semi-pelagians (not accusing you of being one!)





I am not sure I see the dilineation between God's election from a group of fallen mankind, vs. this one goes to heaven etc.?? The first question that must be addressed is did God know the elect before the fall or after.

I am aware that these things are not explicit in scripture and therefore we must be careful. I believe however that it is possible to have a conviction on this topic (even call one's self dogmatic) without crossing the line.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
I think the lists are incorrect.
Here is what I have always seen as the difference:

Supralapsarian (God Centered)

1) God's decree to glorify Himself, and then the means of doing it through an act of redeeming some creatures, and damning others. His glory comes first, the means to that end comes second, logically. So he made man to fall after the fact to carry out the plan.



Infralapsarian (Man Centered)

1) I think I will create a world today.
2) It might be more interesting if these creatures made in my image were able to sin against me.
3) Hmmm, should I save all ? or just a few.
4) I think I will save just a few
5) I will become a man to redeem those few.

Note that the Supralapsarianism is only 1 idea, because God's thought is immediate and not discursive anyway, so fallen finite minds need to put it in logical order to communicate in time.



[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Saiph]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.
What does an almost Arminian look like?
I guess a Westminster Divine. (Or John Calvin)


Arminian is the sense of the overemphasis of the permissive will of God based on brute foreknowledge, rather than the fall being planned.
So then you have absolutely no understanding of infralapsarianism.

Good. Back to hobby horse riding.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
A review of the Logical Order of the Decrees can be found here:

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Decrees.htm

The election from fallen man in the case of Infralapsarianism and the Arminian concept of Salvation based on foreseen faith are similar in nature and scope. Salvation is in response to "brute" foreknowledge as opposed to God's purpose in election.
These two items are about as similar as fire and water. Have you actually read anything about infralapsarianism? Like, say, the Confession?

The real difference is whether God's election has reference to actual people, or whether God elects people in the abstract.

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2440
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.
What does an almost Arminian look like?
I guess a Westminster Divine. (Or John Calvin)

Arminius didn't take issue with Calvin, his issue was with the Supralapsarians, which of course spawned the remonstrance by Arminius and his followers. What is the difference between election from fallen man and foreseen faith? Both are based on Actual sin as opposed to Original sin, because you are dealing with man that has fallen already.
Wow. Three posts in a row where you have absolutely no idea of who you are fighting. You might want to read Berkhof (or Calvin, or the Confession) on the Fall before you keep up with these statements.

Infralapsarianism contemplates God electing man after the decree for the Fall. The Fall is *Original* Sin, not mere actual sin. Of course it was actual for Adam, but that would be the same for supralapsarians as well. Since Original Sin has to be Actual for someone.
 

Dan Dufek

Inactive User
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Originally posted by Dan Dufek
I would agree, in fact I am a Supralapsarian (a rather dogmatic one at that) I would assert that a true infralapsarian runs the risk of becoming almost Arminian as he/she views the order of God's decrees.
What does an almost Arminian look like?
I guess a Westminster Divine. (Or John Calvin)


Arminian is the sense of the overemphasis of the permissive will of God based on brute foreknowledge, rather than the fall being planned.
So then you have absolutely no understanding of infralapsarianism.

Good. Back to hobby horse riding.

Perhaps you could enlighten me? I thought this was a discussion board, so far you hurled insults my way and not added anything to the dialogue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top