# Supralapsarian or infralapsarian?



## Puritanhead (Feb 6, 2006)

Supralapsarian or infralapsarian?

Care to explain your rationale.

I was studying with someone as they were preparing a Sunday school lesson on Friday and talking. I don't regularly visit this subject, because you know being Reformed it is kind of _worn out_, but we got to Romans 8-9 which he was teaching on.

The issue of single versus double predestination came up, as well as supralapsarian versus infralapsarian. I hear that supralapsarians are Hyper-Calvinists, and I understand that most at Synod of Dordt were infralapsarians. However, I pretty much accept R.C. Spoul's _Chosen By God_ without qualification. 

I've read Robert Reymond's systematic on it earlier... Anybody care to explain their view pro and con. I could be a fence sitter on this for now, because I have not sufficiently thought it through.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 6, 2006)

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15805&page=1


----------



## Mike (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Supralapsarian or infralapsarian?
> 
> Care to explain your rationale.


Supralapsarian. Election is before the foundation of the world. Sublapsarians place election in responce to the fall, and therefore after the foundation of the world. They of course place it before the foundation of the world temporally, but that is not important: so do the Arminians. They fail to do so causally.



> The issue of single versus double predestination came up, as well as supralapsarian versus infralapsarian. I hear that supralapsarians are Hyper-Calvinists, and I understand that most at Synod of Dordt were infralapsarians. However, I pretty much accept R.C. Spoul's _Chosen By God_ without qualification.


Superlapsarians are not uniformly hyper-calvinists, in any traditional meaning of the word. Hyper-Calvinists are generally supralapsatians, but that is a different claim.

I did not know that the issue was really very formalized at Dordt.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 6, 2006)

Supra of the Reymond brand. I think that Reymond does an excellent job of expounding the supra scheme.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 6, 2006)

Infra - normally I would discuss why here, but read the thread Patrick linked above, as this issue was actually discussed fairly recently. It was a good discussion, considering the classic infra and supra views as well as Reymond's new scheme. Perhaps someone might even want to revive it, particularly in light of the last point and question currently made in the thread


----------



## Civbert (Feb 6, 2006)

Supra.


----------



## VanVos (Feb 6, 2006)

I opt for the revised supra. It makes more sense to view the decrees teleologically rather than chronologically . Some have objected to this, saying it's more infra than supra because it already considers man as fallen. Which is different to the classical supra positon, where election and reprobation is decreed first outside of the context and concept of a fallen humanity

Read Reymond for the revised supra position

VanVos

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 6, 2006)

Well, I haven't even voted in my own poll.
:bigsmile:


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 6, 2006)

I don't know what these mean


----------

