Which are you? Supra or Infra & why.

Status
Not open for further replies.

NB3K

Puritan Board Sophomore
I happen to hold to the Supralapsarian position of the divine decrees, why? It is logical beyond be belief if one understand's the Sovereignty of God truly in all things.

And there seems to be tons of Scripture showing how much God would like to show man how much He thinks of HIm so I believe this is the position that exalts God in His proper place.

What say ye?
 
Infralapsarian. Why? Because logically God had to decree to create man before He could choose some and reprobate some. He then also had to decree the fall of man before He could necessarily decree an elect and reprobate. He then had to decree sovereignly to choose an elect and pass by the rest leaving them in their sin.

Does this diminish God's sovereignty? Absolutely not, I don't think either view (Supra/Infra) diminishes God's sovereignty (after all isn't it a study of the decrees of God?). The question concerns the logical order of the decrees.
 
Ok the thing that holds me to Supra is not nescessary the order of the decrees, but that in Election and Reprobation, God is not said to simply "pass over them" but to simply reject them.

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

Neither. God's mind is vastly superior to our puny way of thinking.

I can respect that answer.

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

But I think the question is, how did God view man, in the act of "election" & "reprobation", was man "fallen" or just man. I have found that this is where people argue that there's no scriptural support for this.
 
Ok the thing that holds me to Supra is not nescessary the order of the decrees, but that in Election and Reprobation, God is not said to simply "pass over them" but to simply reject them.

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

Neither. God's mind is vastly superior to our puny way of thinking.

I can respect that answer.

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

But I think the question is, how did God view man, in the act of "election" & "reprobation", was man "fallen" or just man. I have found that this is where people argue that there's no scriptural support for this.


I don't think you can state things here that are contra-confessional, but I'm not the judge (moderator).

The Westminster Confession states in Chapter 3, "VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice."
 
Neither. God's mind is vastly superior to our puny way of thinking.

:ditto: and yet I will approach it from another angle.

Supra or Infra? Well, I´m both ! why? Because one will tend to sacrifice some points of Scripture in order to choose one of the schemes.

And let's be honest, the schemes fall close to what is called Archetypal Theology. This is, Theology pretending to know what only God knows, as opposed to Ectypal Theology, Theology based on God's Revelation alone.

On the top of this, even God's Revelation is analogical, instead of univocal, it is Revelation accommodated to our finite minds, so always far from being exhaustive and comprehensive.

(Gordon Clark had problems with these principles though, so some of you Clarkians might therefore not agree)

This is basically what Calvin suggested in his famous bay talk quote:

For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height.
Calvin's Institutes 1.13.1

Pretty much like Richard Tallach wrote above, we must acknowledge our limitations of apprehension, implicit in the distinction Creator – creature.

Nevertheless unlike Richard I didn't answer none but both (although I guess I also agree with the point he makes in his answer), as I think both schemes, and schemes they are, may help us in relation to each other, to apprehend a wider glimpse of God's hugeness. While only both schemes together can take into account different passages of Scripture.

(True also that our Reformed Confessions are in principle Infra Lapsarian, even if several Supra Lapsarian men were involved in drafting them, arguably to not exclude either).

So in conclusion, I strongly encourage you to read Herman Bavinck's writing on the subject, link below.

These are what Klaas Schilder classified as the most beautiful pages ever written on Dogmatics.

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism by Herman Bavinck

PS.

I've been told I have an Infra-iority complex.
:lol:

Better than the other right?
 
Ok the thing that holds me to Supra is not nescessary the order of the decrees, but that in Election and Reprobation, God is not said to simply "pass over them" but to simply reject them.

infralapsarians believe in reprobation as well. Bavinck points this out.

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism by Herman Bavinck

Sorry Boliver, only noticed now that you posted the same link, well it is never too much to direct folk to Bavinck's writings :)
 
I'm with the "neither" folks on this. I was a Supra-, but Bavinck's discussion in Reformed Dogmatics convinced me that neither adequately deals with God.
 
I don't think you can state things here that are contra-confessional, but I'm not the judge (moderator).

Yes true, but doesn't the Bible teach that God just does what ever HE wants to do with the Reprobate. I mean when Paul states that God is "fitting" "vessels of wrath" to the very end which is "destruction" for the praise of His glorious grace. It doesn't sound as if they're being merely passed by. And I think I am mixing apples with oranges???
 
Neither. God's mind is vastly superior to our puny way of thinking.

This doesn't hinder theologians from observing that there are ordered relationships in God's purposes. Calvinists assert a specific relation of predestination to faith which is contrary to the Arminian way of looking at it. Given this commitment to examining the relationship of the things decreed there need be no reason for ignoring the question of how predestination relates to the fall.

The issue itself, when examined, reveals important differences which can arise with respect to our knowledge of God. Supralapsarians tend to think of God in terms of freedom; infralapsarians focus on His nature.

Finally, there are important doctrinal considerations tied up with the issue. (1) There is creation and redemption. Does creation represent an original purpose which the fall has destroyed? Is redemption a mere restoration of the created order, or a fulfilment of something higher to which the creation was designed to attain? (2) There are also Christological considerations. What emphasis does the pre-eminence of Christ have in one's theology? The New Testament (and the prophetic vision of the Old Testament) testifies that Jesus Christ is the I AM for whom all things are made? Even Adam was a figure of Christ to come.

I don't believe it is wise to pass this issue off as something inherently speculative. There is a profitable discussion underlying the disagreement if people are willing to examine a little deeper than the rhetoric usually allows.
 
John Girardeau asserts in Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism that 1) many Arminian arguments against Calvinism are actually directed against supralapsarianism and 2) the Westminster Confession is an infralapsarian document.
 
John Girardeau asserts in Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism that 1) many Arminian arguments against Calvinism are actually directed against supralapsarianism and 2) the Westminster Confession is an infralapsarian document.


Haven't come across many assertions that the Reformed are not either supra or infra, with the majority in the latter category.

The middle ground seems safe between them.
 
John Girardeau asserts in Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism that 1) many Arminian arguments against Calvinism are actually directed against supralapsarianism and 2) the Westminster Confession is an infralapsarian document.

Rev Winzer, like Pastor Tim quoted from Girardeau*, the reformed confessions are arguably infra lapsarian, and not explicitily so, there is no article defending one or the other order on the Decree,

isn't that a clear sign that we may be treading away from revealed ground when we want to arrive at a final formulation?

By this I mean that debating may help us to be more aware of God's greatness while pretending to make it final may be just falling into speculation.

For example, Robert Reymond, with all the respect that he should deserve from us, may have gone too far on this matter in his ST.

(btw it is a privilege to be in the city Charleston, South Carolina, where this godly man, John L. Girardeau, was so greatly used by God in such a compassionate ministry with Christian slaves,
whom so dearly loved their Pastor)
 
What did Reymond advise the world?

Boettner made a regrettable anti-Supra comment in his work...

If someone is going to make a big issue of it and I'm stuck in the car for a long trip, I let them speak first and agree with their point of view without saying much more.
 
Rev Winzer, like Pastor Tim quoted from Girardeau*, the reformed confessions are arguably infra lapsarian, and not explicitily so, there is no article defending one or the other order on the Decree,

I would argue that this is based on a misunderstanding of the point at which supralapsarianism is distinguished from infralapsarianism and a refusal to see that point distinctively articulated in the Westminster Confession. I won't repeat here what I have said on other threads. Suffice to say, the fact that the Confession teaches "infralapsarianism" with reference to the order of "salvation" does not warrant the conclusion that it is infralapsarian on the relation of the decree of predestination to the fall. It is the jump in logic which has led to the idea that the Confession is infralapsarian, but that jump in logic is easily refuted.
 
Ok the thing that holds me to Supra is not nescessary the order of the decrees, but that in Election and Reprobation, God is not said to simply "pass over them" but to simply reject them.

infralapsarians believe in reprobation as well. Bavinck points this out.

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism by Herman Bavinck

Sorry Boliver, only noticed now that you posted the same link, well it is never too much to direct folk to Bavinck's writings :)

I couldn't agree more.
 
Rev Winzer, like Pastor Tim quoted from Girardeau*, the reformed confessions are arguably infra lapsarian, and not explicitily so, there is no article defending one or the other order on the Decree,

I would argue that this is based on a misunderstanding of the point at which supralapsarianism is distinguished from infralapsarianism and a refusal to see that point distinctively articulated in the Westminster Confession. I won't repeat here what I have said on other threads. Suffice to say, the fact that the Confession teaches "infralapsarianism" with reference to the order of "salvation" does not warrant the conclusion that it is infralapsarian on the relation of the decree of predestination to the fall. It is the jump in logic which has led to the idea that the Confession is infralapsarian, but that jump in logic is easily refuted.

I wrote arguably because I know is not a consensual conclusion.

Rev Winzer, are your refering to the distinction between the Decree in its order and its further application?

I understand you may already have written on this, but it would be important to those who haven't read it if you could post here again -

Do you see susbtantial differences between the Westminster Standards and the 3FU on this particular matter?

Several continental theologians that subscribed the 3FU are also Supralapsarians, A. Kuyper being one of the most mentioned.

Don't know where Ridderbos (Herman) stands on this matter though. Berkouwer got messed up in a decree only suited to the god Janus.
 
I understand you may already have written on this, but it would be important to those who haven't read it if you could post here again -

I can't locate the posts without an exhaustive search. Basically the point is this -- the supra scheme is identical to the infra scheme regarding the order of the decree in relation to salvation from the effects of the fall. Those who regard the Confession as infra draw attention to the "salvation order" without recognising that the supra scheme is in agreement with this. It is simply preposterous to suppose that because the supra scheme holds that man was predestined to life before the fall it does not hold to a predestination to salvation after the fall. Yet, time and again, this is the underlying assumption. The two are set in contrast when in fact they are complementary. The illustration I use is the idea of a train picking up passengers at different stops. The fact that the train picks up passenger A at stop Z and passenger B at stop Y means that passenger A is aboard the train at stop Y when passenger B boards the train.

On the neglect of supra elements in the Confession, note especially the language of 3.3. The statement does not depend on the supposition of the fall. "Everlasting life" is typical supra language as it removes the element of "salvation," which presupposes a fall. Further, 3.5 provides something additional with respect to the salvation of those who are predestined to life. This election in Christ is the starting point for the infra scheme, but it is the second point in the supra scheme. It appears in the confession as a second point of predestination. It is also noteworthy that the language of 3.5 is taken up by those theologians who expand and expound the teaching of the covenant of redemption, e.g., Rutherford, Goodwin, and they do so as a specification of predestination according to the supra scheme.

With respect to Dort, I haven't studied the historical sources in great depth. Those who have studied them tend to accept that it is infralapsarian -- even supralapsarians who subscribe to the 3 forms. That seems fairly weighty in my estimation. Unlike Westminster, it doesn't have any appearance of a two point exposition. Hence there is no trace of anything distinctively supra. On the other hand, the fact that it is specific to a class of doctrines, and is taken in connection with a broader confession and catechism, perhaps leaves the door open for saying that it was not intended to serve as a generalised scheme of doctrine, and so appeal to it for this issue is somewhat irrelevant. The Arminian controversy is only really concerned with predestination as it relates to salvation; the response of Dort is naturally conditioned on the terms set by the controversy.
 
Last edited:
The following article was once hosted online but I can no longer find it. The author suggested the 1689 was supra.

In contrast, the 1689 Confession seems to advocate a far more definite stance on the lapsarian position. Firstly, in the 1689 Confession, the distinction between ‘predestination’ and ‘foreordination’ is collapsed. The revised section in 3.3 was changed to read, “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory some men and Angels are predestinated, or fore-ordained to Eternal Life.”35 Furthermore, in chapter 3.6, the addition of a comma36 before the phrase “being fallen in Adam” is far more suggestive of a reading which alludes to the temporal ordo salutis rather than the order of decrees sub specie aeternitatis. Following this reading, “the words, ‘being fallen in Adam’, do not imply that the elect when elected were contemplated as fallen in Adam. The words simply state an historical fact which explains the necessity of redemption by Christ and the other phases of salvation.” These two modifications of the Westminster Confession undoubtedly demonstrate the Baptist’s desire to subscribe to a supralapsarian understanding of the ordo decretorum. However, this definite stance on the lapsarian position does not necessarily call into question the Baptists’ use of the Westminster document. If the Westminster document is careful to avoid language which excludes one or other lapsarian position, then it clearly treats a specific lapsarian position as immaterial to the more immediate task of creating a Confession of Faith. That the Baptist Confession chooses to promote a supralapsarian ordo decretorum does not oppose the Westminster document, but rather elucidates the Westminster Confession so as to give it a more definite interpretation.
[old source link: http://www.sicliff.co.uk/jon/1689.pdf]
 
The following article was once hosted online but I can no longer find it. The author suggested the 1689 was supra.

The different terms, predestination and foreordination, was as typical of supralapsarians as infralapsarians. If anything, the omission of foreordination to eternal death, and the addition of the concept of preterition, is a movement towards the infra scheme.
 
Supralapsarian's don't believe God is restrained by anything, If God wants to create men for one purpose or another, he will do so, and whether are not He views them fallen or up right, it does not limit whatsoever He so pleases to do. For example from simple reasoning, you exist for either one end or another. The clay has been divided in such a way that God has so ordained two sets of pottery. THere will be Vessels of Wrath being Fitted for destruction, and there will be Vessels of Mercy prepared beforehand for glory (namely predestined) and this only happens because God has decided that He wants His name to be exalted throughout all of His creation. And God does what ever He so pleases to accomplish His purpose of be glorified! Sorry for the rant.

But this view would really change the way you think what it means to be Loved by God!
 
Supralapsarian's don't believe God is restrained by anything, If God wants to create men for one purpose or another, he will do so, and whether are not He views them fallen or up right, it does not limit whatsoever He so pleases to do

It is silly to think that infralapsarians do not think the same.
 
I prefer supra, but since our salvation is not determined by either one, I'm not stressing over it.
 
It is silly to think that infralapsarians do not think the same.

Well infralapsarians believe that in order for God to maintiain His just character He has to view man as fallen and guilty before He can damn them. [If not, they think this makes God the author of sin*], but it really doesn't, it maintains His Authority.

*Please correct me if you think I am wrong.
 
Sorry, but I'm not convinced the OP has a decent grasp on what the two views mean based on comments on this and other threads...
 
It is silly to think that infralapsarians do not think the same.

Well infralapsarians believe that in order for God to maintiain His just character He has to view man as fallen and guilty before He can damn them. [If not, they think this makes God the author of sin*], but it really doesn't, it maintains His Authority.

*Please correct me if you think I am wrong.

As an infra, I don't agree that God is made the author of sin if I took the supra position. So I am correcting you! Everyone here agrees that He decreed the fall, and everyone here agrees that He is not the author of sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top