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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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....
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
In other news, however, I am a dogmatic pre-umbilicalist. Adam had a belly-button prior to the Fall.
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!!
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)
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)
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....
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.