Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace' started by Dan Dufek, Jan 4, 2006.
If one accepts the supralapsarian understanding of the creeds, is one by default a Hyper-calvinist?
Finally, Jeff and I agree on something.
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:
Herman Hoeksema was as well.
Gordon Clark and Robert Reymond (along with Hoeksema) defended what is called "modified" supralapsarianism, which is what I believe.
Berkhof also lists the following as Supralapsarians:
Robert Reymond adds
to the list.
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!!
What does an almost Arminian look like?
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.
I guess a Westminster Divine. (Or John Calvin)
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.
I'm with my fellow Italian Turretin on this one...
I am not certain what you found funny, but I am glad I could provide some levity.
Arminian is the sense of the overemphasis of the permissive will of God based on brute foreknowledge, rather than the fall being planned.
A review of the Logical Order of the Decrees can be found here:
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.
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.
Were you dead in Actual or Original sin?
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?
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.
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]
So then you have absolutely no understanding of infralapsarianism.
Good. Back to hobby horse riding.
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.
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.
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.