Are you either a Supralapsarian or Infralapsarian?

What can we know about the decree of God?
orchardman
Invested Member
Invested Member
Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 01:56

21 Aug 2015, 00:05 #21

I think we need clear definitions of 'Infra' and 'Supra' lapsarianism before this discussion can continue with profit.

Orchardman
Standing for a point of truth is mere flight and disgrace if you ignore the broader truths God is presently launching upon the world.
Reply

User avatar
Ask Mr. Religion
Site Founder
Site Founder
Joined: 28 Jul 2008, 09:13

21 Aug 2015, 01:59 #22

orchardman:22769 wrote:I think we need clear definitions of 'Infra' and 'Supra' lapsarianism before this discussion can continue with profit.

Orchardman
Start here.
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)
Do You Confess?
Faculty PRBS
My Randomata Blog
Reply

DrWhofan1
RTI Guru
RTI Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 22:14

24 Aug 2015, 00:13 #23

Just a clarification question here...

Do both teach and hold to double predestination, or is that just for those in the Supra position then?
Reply

User avatar
Ask Mr. Religion
Site Founder
Site Founder
Joined: 28 Jul 2008, 09:13

24 Aug 2015, 04:11 #24

DrWhofan1:22803 wrote:Just a clarification question here...

Do both teach and hold to double predestination, or is that just for those in the Supra position then?
Both would teach double predestination, but not in the sense of equal ultimacy.

"The much greater issue of double predestination is the issue over the relationship between election and reprobation with respect to the nature of the decrees and the nature of the divine outworking of the decrees. If double predestination means a symmetrical view of predestination, then we must reject the notion. But such a view of double predestination would be a caricature and a serious distortion of the Reformed doctrine of predestination."

See more here:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/ ... stination/
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)
Do You Confess?
Faculty PRBS
My Randomata Blog
Reply

DrWhofan1
RTI Guru
RTI Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 22:14

25 Aug 2015, 12:49 #25

Are there not Reformed though who would hold that God durectly determined to predestinate His elect unto salvation and final stages, as in Romans 8, but that he indirectlt by passed and permitted the lost to stay lost, as they would will to be foing?

That Double predestination teaches that the lost was determined by God to go to Hell in the end, but that those not holding to that would see him as determining what the end result would be of their permiited renellion state?[POSTCOMMENTMYFFIPC22814]
Reply

DrWhofan1
RTI Guru
RTI Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 22:14

31 Aug 2015, 12:58 #26

Both position have been held and promoted by Christians in  the reformed tradition, but Hyper Calvinistic viewpoints go beyond what has been seen as being consistant with scriptures!

As that view point negates the  need to follow the great commission, and tend to support something akin to eternal justification!
Reply

Reformed Baptist
Leading Member
Leading Member
Joined: 20 Nov 2015, 17:59

23 Nov 2015, 21:50 #27

I tend towards supralapsarianism but I am anything but a hyper-Calvinist (though some might call me a high Calvinist) however to my mind the whole debate is rather artificial. It is a discussion of the logical order of God's decrees and which came first in his mind.

For me, the issues with that are:

1) The decrees of God are eternal - God has never sat down ordered logically the steps he needs to take to bring about his purposes - his decrees have just 'always' been.

2) The decrees themselves are somewhat arbitrarily defined rather the explicitly stated in Scripture in my opinion

3) the order tends be based on how we might work back from our end goal - but is our mind God's mind?

Just consider my supra position, basically it as follows:

God's goal is his glory which he achieves through sovereign grace and righteous judgment. To that end there there is a need for sinners; to achieve that there must be a fall - to make that possible there must be a world created in righteousness.

However it would be equally logical to suggest other orders and that is the problem - it is a question of how we make sense something that I wonder sometimes if we even should be trying to make sense of at all and maybe that is why those who formed our confessions steered clear of a discussion of lapsarianism in their thoughtfully put together statements of faith - which do not go beyond Scripture.
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon
Reply

DrWhofan1
RTI Guru
RTI Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 22:14

30 Nov 2015, 17:30 #28

Do think that is one of the hardest things to het a hold on concerning this discussion, that the decrees of God were/are all eternal, and not done in  a strict linear time fashion as we tend to have to see them as being done in!

I have no problem with either viewpoint, just as long as one does not venture into the idea that God determined and directly caused satan and adam to sin and Fall, as they both did their wicked deeds in "free will" ...
Reply

Reformed Baptist
Leading Member
Leading Member
Joined: 20 Nov 2015, 17:59

30 Nov 2015, 18:04 #29

DrWhofan1:23567 wrote:Do think that is one of the hardest things to het a hold on concerning this discussion, that the decrees of God were/are all eternal, and not done in a strict linear time fashion as we tend to have to see them as being done in!
The discussion is not 'a time order' but a 'logical order'
I have no problem with either viewpoint, just as long as one does not venture into the idea that God determined and directly caused satan and adam to sin and Fall, as they both did their wicked deeds in "free will" ...
However both views directly assert that God is the first cause of everything that happens (and that includes every sin committed), and both views also emphasis the 'liberty/ contingency of secondary causes', for example the Westminster confession states:

3.1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Similar the Baptist confession asserts:

3.1 God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.

Of course we see this truth played out in Scripture, and even explicitly detailed in Scripture, consider the death of the Lord Jesus Christ - the greatest sin of mankind in our whole histroy - and what do we read of it?

Acts 2:23 "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken1 by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; (NKJ)

We read that it happened according the determined purpose of God - ie God decreed it, but at the same time the guilt of that sin is laid at the door of the men who performed it.

What you have presented in a false dichotomy that actually does nothing to address the issue you feel needs to be addressed which is God's relationship to evil. Unless you are an open theist all you actually do is push the cause back in your thinking, because God still caused the fall and every sin commited by his act of creation (if nothing else). It is actually far more preferable to allow the bible to answer the question, God is sovereign over sin, but we commit the sin!
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon
Reply