Supralapsarianism or Infralapsarianism??

[MW]

Of course both views constrain the Eternal God with a creation of His, time and order...

It is a matter of course that every point of contact with His creation will place "constraints" on God.

 

[reformed trucker]

Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism by Herman Bavinck

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Supraman.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am a Christological supralapsarian in the tradition of Rutherford and Goodwin. I believe Christ is the firstborn of every creature and head of all things, elect and reprobate, Col. 1; I believe Adam was created as a type of the Perfect Man having lordship over all, Hebrews 2; I believe the creation of the first Adam as a living being was necessarily preliminary to the spiritual order coming through the second Adam who is a quickening spirit, 1 Cor. 15; I believe the condemnation and death of the covenant of works was intended to typify the justification and life of the covenant of grace, Rom. 5:12-21. As such, the perfect humanity, heavenly order, and covenant mediation of Christ must be viewed as the end for which man, the earthly order, and the covenant of works were created.

I agree with Rev. Winzer.

God is free and Holy

 

[Idelette]

Thanks for your input here. I do have a question for you or anyone who may happen to know. When people say that the majority of the Westminster Divines were infra....is that based on the language of the WCF or historical knowledge of the Westminster men?? I haven't been able to find a conclusive answer to this question yet.

I doubt a "conclusive" answer will be forthcoming. There is as yet no written study which has examined the views of all the divines. A few names are tossed about as supra, infra, or modified Amyraldian, but no attempt is genuinely made to analyse their writings. Two recent studies may be found in the Westminster Confession into the twenty-first century, vol. 2, by Fesko, and vol. 3, by Thomas. Some divines are analysed but by and large generalisations are still repeated.

There is a basic misunderstanding which prevails on this subject. A supralapsarian believes with the infralapsarian that the elect are ordained to salvation through Jesus Christ. Hence, at the logical point at which the elect are ordained to salvation they are considered as fallen. The idea that the election is of fallen people is not an infralapsarian distinctive. The infralapsarian distinctive is simply a rejection of the supralapsarian distinctive that election to glory is of men unfallen. It is like a train travelling through different stops. If one traveller (the supralapsarian) boards the train at stop 1 and another traveller (the infralapsarian) boards at stop 2, the first traveller (the supralapsarian) is aboard the train at stop 2. It is just that the second traveller (the infralapsarian) is not aboard the train at stop 1.

What does this mean so far as interpreting the Confession is concerned? Those who claim that the Confession allows for both positions are effectively saying it is supralapsarian. If WCF 3:3 is permitted to teach what it plainly says, that God predestinated some men to everlasting life, without the condition that these men were considered fallen, then the statement is clearly supralapsarian. It is the infralapsarian who must add the qualification that "fallen" men were predestinated to everlasting life. When WCF 3:6 proceeds to speak about the means of salvation being provided to those "fallen in Adam," it should be understood that this is a statement which is part of both systems, and hence says nothing to prejudice the supralapsarian position.

Reverend Winzer, thank you for this useful post. It was very helpful to me, and I will see if I can find those studies done by Fesko and Thomas.

 

[N. Eshelman]

I am a bit surprised that at this point there are 2x the number of supralapsarians as infralapsarians. Frankly, in 'my circles' of friends that are pastors, theologians, students of theology, etc. I know few that are supra (or at least admit to it). Not that I have done a poll or anything; I just hear more people talking about being 'infra'.

Interesting. Nothing else to say. Just found it interesting.

Calling myself 'inframan' just doesn't sound as cool as 'supraman' either.

 

[Christusregnat]

Calling myself 'inframan' just doesn't sound as cool as 'supraman' either.

People have made theological decisions for more vain reasons, but I can't really think of any at the moment...

Cheers,

 

[N. Eshelman]

Calling myself 'inframan' just doesn't sound as cool as 'supraman' either.

People have made theological decisions for more vain reasons, but I can't really think of any at the moment...

Cheers,

I am infra; but I think that I may switch, just so that I can call myself 'supraman'.

 

[Christusregnat]

Actually, don't feel too badly, I made up a bunch of screen names, and voted 17 times, just to even out the poll.

 

[DMcFadden]

Calling myself 'inframan' just doesn't sound as cool as 'supraman' either.

People have made theological decisions for more vain reasons, but I can't really think of any at the moment...

Cheers,

I am infra; but I think that I may switch, just so that I can call myself 'supraman'.

Actually, Nate, it could be worse. They could call you a "sub." Somehow, I cannot imagine being called "sub" almost anything would be a good thing. No wonder you prefer "infra."