Infralapsarian vs. supralapsarian

Status
Not open for further replies.

xcrunner12

Puritan Board Freshman
I was up pretty late last night and stumbled across a descrption of Infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism and I must say that the supralapsarian position makes alot of sense to me, but as i was reading about on a website (i can't find the link, srry) it said that supralapsarian position was that of hyper-calvinism. I was wondering if you guys could clear this up for me.

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by xcrunner12]
 
Someone has put it this way:
Virtually all hypercalvinists are supralapsarian.
But, not all supralapsarians are hypercalvinist.
 
See this thread and especially this thread for good discussions on this topic.

Calvinism has been divided on this issue throughout the centuries, most Calvinists on the infra side, but many notable theologians on the supra side as well. In my studies of the issue, I believe that the "modified" position supralapsarianism is the biblical position. Robert Reymond in his systematic theology does a good job of explaining the position well, but it will take some long study of the topic and meditation upon the different arguments to determine what scripture has to say on the topic.
 
This is one of those areas in which discussion tends to generate lots of heat and little light.

I, personally, am infralapsarian... but I can certainly sympathize with the concerns and arguments of supralapsarians.
 
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
See this thread and especially this thread for good discussions on this topic.

Calvinism has been divided on this issue throughout the centuries, most Calvinists on the infra side, but many notable theologians on the supra side as well. In my studies of the issue, I believe that the "modified" position supralapsarianism is the biblical position. Robert Reymond in his systematic theology does a good job of explaining the position well, but it will take some long study of the topic and meditation upon the different arguments to determine what scripture has to say on the topic.

We must not assume that scripture says anything on the topic. A study on God and the His relationship to his attributes is where the answer lies. I personally believe that God has not revealed the answer (not assuming some unknown third option is impossible)

CT

I agree that we must not assume that the Bible says anthing regarding the subject, but I for one, believe that it does. ;)
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
See this thread and especially this thread for good discussions on this topic.

Calvinism has been divided on this issue throughout the centuries, most Calvinists on the infra side, but many notable theologians on the supra side as well. In my studies of the issue, I believe that the "modified" position supralapsarianism is the biblical position. Robert Reymond in his systematic theology does a good job of explaining the position well, but it will take some long study of the topic and meditation upon the different arguments to determine what scripture has to say on the topic.

We must not assume that scripture says anything on the topic. A study on God and the His relationship to his attributes is where the answer lies. I personally believe that God has not revealed the answer (not assuming some unknown third option is impossible)

CT

I agree that we must not assume that the Bible says anthing regarding the subject, but I for one, believe that it does. ;)

But what the Bible certainly does not say is Reymond's gobbledygook. It might say infra. It might say supra. It might even say, "don't worry about it." But it can't say a logical inconsistency about the logical order of God's decrees.
 
Notice from the article:

But Reymond's view also leaves unanswered the question of how and why God would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the human race would fall. (Some might even argue that Reymond's refinements result in a position that, as far as the key distinction is concerned, is implicitly infralapsarian.)
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
See this thread and especially this thread for good discussions on this topic.

Calvinism has been divided on this issue throughout the centuries, most Calvinists on the infra side, but many notable theologians on the supra side as well. In my studies of the issue, I believe that the "modified" position supralapsarianism is the biblical position. Robert Reymond in his systematic theology does a good job of explaining the position well, but it will take some long study of the topic and meditation upon the different arguments to determine what scripture has to say on the topic.

We must not assume that scripture says anything on the topic. A study on God and the His relationship to his "Revealed" attributes is where the answer lies. I personally believe that God has not revealed the answer (not assuming some unknown third option is impossible)

CT
 
Originally posted by xcrunner12
I came across this while reading about and getting headache over this topic: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm
Robert Reymond's Revised Supralapsarianism is quite nice.

Eric,

This topic still gives me a headache, and I've been a serious student of the reformed faith for like 25 years. I really hope that you will read and study the Westminster standards (I suggest the edition published by FPP) - that itself will keep you plenty busy, and I hope, productive. in my opinion the current topic is among the "finer points". This type of thing reminds me of how people head straight for the Apocolypse before getting a good grasp on the OT and the rest of the NT.

Have a blessed Sabbath day,
J. Sulzmann

PS: Leveque - obviously French origin. The Lord graciously spared you from finding yourself within the confines of Rome, as he did me. I have no French blood, but my mother was of Irish ancestry and reared in the Roman communion; fortunately she married a man who refused to have a priest dictate how his children would be reared. My mother converted to Protestantism some 8 years after they married.

Are you a Huguenot descendent? If you don't know, you might want to research that. Mr. Myers (VirginiaHuguenot handle) might prove a good resource - I'm sure that he would encourage you.
 
To the best of my knowledge I am not of Huguenot descent, but I think it would be really cool if I was. My ancestors came over in the late 1800's and the 1st generation of Leveques here were Methodist, but not much is known about the first of my ancestors' religious beliefs, unfortunatly.
 
I agree with Fred about the criticisms of Reymond's supra scheme. It defeats the purpose of maintaining an order in the decrees at all. Remembering, of course, that the order is only a logical not a chronological one.

I uphold Christological supralapsarianism (that may be a new expression). "That in all things He might have the pre-eminence." Christ was elected Head of creation first. Hence Adam was a figure of Him who was to come. Then the creation was subordinated to Him: first the elect, then the reprobate. The creation was subject to vanity. Christ was ordained to reconcile all things to Himself.

It is inconceivable that the decree did not have the exaltation of Christ as its principal object.
 
Originally posted by xcrunner12
To the best of my knowledge I am not of Huguenot descent, but I think it would be really cool if I was. My ancestors came over in the late 1800's and the 1st generation of Leveques here were Methodist, but not much is known about the first of my ancestors' religious beliefs, unfortunatly.

Leveque is a distinguished name from Normandy (one of my bosses has the name Levesque, pronounced the same), but it is not listed in the National Huguenot Society database of Huguenot surnames. That is not a definitive answer to the question, however, further personalized research would be necessary to definitively say one way or the other.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Notice from the article:

But Reymond's view also leaves unanswered the question of how and why God would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the human race would fall. (Some might even argue that Reymond's refinements result in a position that, as far as the key distinction is concerned, is implicitly infralapsarian.)

I disagree with this criticism. Supralapsarianism has always held to the idea that what is the ultimate end, is the first in design (or planning). In this case, the end is "œredeeming fallen men by Christ´s atoning work". This presupposes not only sinful men, but all sorts of other things not *actually* decreed yet, such as the incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord. After this end in mind, God teleologically works out the means by which to accomplish this end.

The first suppose that in a rational mind, that which is ultimate as end, is first in design; and that, in the process of planning, the mind passes from the end to the means, traveling as it were backwards.
From www.mbrem.com/calvinism/dab-sup.htm+supralapsarianism+what+is+%22first+in%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2]Dabney on Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian[/url]
 
Supra: election and reprobation consider man in an unfallen state.

Infra: election and reprobation consider man in a fallen state.

How is it possible that the end in supralapsarianism is "œredeeming fallen men by Christ´s atoning work?" That appears to me to be the fundamental tenet of infralapsarianism.
 
Originally posted by armourbearer
I agree with Fred about the criticisms of Reymond's supra scheme. It defeats the purpose of maintaining an order in the decrees at all. Remembering, of course, that the order is only a logical not a chronological one.

I uphold Christological supralapsarianism (that may be a new expression). "That in all things He might have the pre-eminence." Christ was elected Head of creation first. Hence Adam was a figure of Him who was to come. Then the creation was subordinated to Him: first the elect, then the reprobate. The creation was subject to vanity. Christ was ordained to reconcile all things to Himself.

It is inconceivable that the decree did not have the exaltation of Christ as its principal object.

Thank you, Rev. Winzer, for this piece of wisdom and insight. I especially appreciate that 3rd (last) paragraph.

Cheers -- Jay
 
Originally posted by armourbearer
Supra: election and reprobation consider man in an unfallen state.

Infra: election and reprobation consider man in a fallen state.

How is it possible that the end in supralapsarianism is "œredeeming fallen men by Christ´s atoning work?" That appears to me to be the fundamental tenet of infralapsarianism.

Exactly. Which is why I have said in previous threads that that Reymond is all wet. It is like saying that men breath water instead of air, provided that water is considered a gas made up of nitrogen and oxygen.
 
Originally posted by armourbearer
Supra: election and reprobation consider man in an unfallen state.

Infra: election and reprobation consider man in a fallen state.

How is it possible that the end in supralapsarianism is "œredeeming fallen men by Christ´s atoning work?" That appears to me to be the fundamental tenet of infralapsarianism.

Technically, this is not the case. Supralapsarianism is defined by the decree to elect preceding the decree of the fall. This does not necessitate that God cannot have men as fallen in mind (i.e. as his end) before actually decreeing it to be so logically (i.e. the means). Infralapsarianism is defined as the decree of the fall precedes election. The modified view has God viewing the ultimate goal of fallen men redeemed by Christ while the actual means of carrying out that goal (the individual decrees) have election preceding the decree of the fall. Hence it technically is still supralapsarianism.
 
It is a no-no to regard the order as chronological rather than logical. It can only lead to confusion. The difference between supra and infra solely pertains to the question of the logical relation of the decree with respect to predestination and the fall. "Supra" = above; "infra"= below;" "lapsus" = the fall.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by armourbearer
Supra: election and reprobation consider man in an unfallen state.

Infra: election and reprobation consider man in a fallen state.

How is it possible that the end in supralapsarianism is "œredeeming fallen men by Christ´s atoning work?" That appears to me to be the fundamental tenet of infralapsarianism.

Technically, this is not the case. Supralapsarianism is defined by the decree to elect preceding the decree of the fall. This does not necessitate that God cannot have men as fallen in mind (i.e. as his end) before actually decreeing it to be so logically (i.e. the means). Infralapsarianism is defined as the decree of the fall precedes election. The modified view has God viewing the ultimate goal of fallen men redeemed by Christ while the actual means of carrying out that goal (the individual decrees) have election preceding the decree of the fall. Hence it technically is still supralapsarianism.

Jeff,

Technically, that is exactly the case, as Rev. Winzer has pointed out. As has been pointed out numerous times, supralapsarianism has advantages and disadvantages. It also has Biblical support to draw on. So likewise does infralapsarianism. The "modified" view is incoherent nonsense.
 
no one should have difficulty confusing the logical order of the decrees with the chronological order. Chronologically, all of the decrees happened at the same time, or rather all of the decrees happened before time. To me, the most reasonable order is that predestination happens because mankind is fallen into unrighteousness and of course all things are subordinated to God's glory which is prior to everything in the order.
 
Originally posted by Peter
To me, the most reasonable order is that predestination happens because mankind is fallen into unrighteousness and of course all things are subordinated to God's glory which is prior to everything in the order.

It is an inherent weakness in the infralapsarian scheme that the only place it has for Christ is as an after-thought.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by armourbearer
Supra: election and reprobation consider man in an unfallen state.

Infra: election and reprobation consider man in a fallen state.

How is it possible that the end in supralapsarianism is "œredeeming fallen men by Christ´s atoning work?" That appears to me to be the fundamental tenet of infralapsarianism.

Technically, this is not the case. Supralapsarianism is defined by the decree to elect preceding the decree of the fall. This does not necessitate that God cannot have men as fallen in mind (i.e. as his end) before actually decreeing it to be so logically (i.e. the means). Infralapsarianism is defined as the decree of the fall precedes election. The modified view has God viewing the ultimate goal of fallen men redeemed by Christ while the actual means of carrying out that goal (the individual decrees) have election preceding the decree of the fall. Hence it technically is still supralapsarianism.

I remember us touching on this point a bit in an earlier thread on the subject. There seem to be four terms that stand at the heart of the disagreement and/or confusion on God's decrees and their relationship to man's fall and man's fallen state: Contemplation, intent, decree, and act.

We all agree that God did all of the former three with regard to the fall before He did the fourth (bringing the fall to pass). I think what caused our confusion previously was my failure to precisely differentiate between the first three terms, and you had mentioned WCF.III.II to clarify that God always has contemplated anything and everything. As such, I fully agree with you that He can have contemplation of man being fallen without yet (using "yet" in a logical rather than chronological way, of course) having either intent or decree of man being fallen.

I think the main point of disagreement, then, is that you seem to be further saying that God can have intent of man being fallen without yet having decree of man being fallen; and that is what I (along with Fred and Matthew, I'm guessing) see as being a logical impossibility. Now with regard to human thought, that would in fact be logically possible, for of course we can intend to do something in the future without yet deciding (decreeing) to definitely do it in the future (see my example of this at the end of the post). With regard to God's thought, however, I would strongly say that He cannot intend something without decreeing it, since, unlike man, any and all intents and purposes He has inevitably come to pass. That is why for God, an intent necessarily and automatically means a decree;
and that is why an intention in God's mind to one day redeem a fallen people cannot precede (in an order of logic) a decree for a people to fall.

######

(Example of humans being able to intend a future act without yet even officially deciding in their minds to one day do it: I intend to enroll in XYZ College two years from now since what I have heard about it overall is much better than what i have heard about the other colleges on my list. But that intent in my mind will only change to an official decision in my mind once I talk with a English chairman. Upon doing so, I find myself unsatisfied with the English department, which outweighs whatever other positive factors the college has. So while the act of enrolling in the college is still two years away, the intent occured right then two years in advance, but the decision never occured right then, even though it might have occured right then had factors been different.)
 
Originally posted by armourbearer
Originally posted by Peter
To me, the most reasonable order is that predestination happens because mankind is fallen into unrighteousness and of course all things are subordinated to God's glory which is prior to everything in the order.

It is an inherent weakness in the infralapsarian scheme that the only place it has for Christ is as an after-thought.

Christ as Mediator is an after-thought. It doesn't make sense to conceive Christ exalted in his office of Mediator without first the fall and sin. Christ as God has priority though.
 
I found at least two words that should never be proclaimed from a pulpit:
<ul><li>Infralapsarian</li>
<li>Supralapsarian</li></ul>
 
Originally posted by armourbearer
It is a no-no to regard the order as chronological rather than logical. It can only lead to confusion. The difference between supra and infra solely pertains to the question of the logical relation of the decree with respect to predestination and the fall. "Supra" = above; "infra"= below;" "lapsus" = the fall.

Matthew,

Forgive me, but I don't see where I or Reymond have done this. In fact, that is exactly what his treatment seeks to expose and prevent. Simply using such words as "precede" and such (if this is what caused this warning) can be used in a logical order as well as a chronological order.

Blessings,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top