Superlapsarianism vs Infralapsarianism

[mead]

I'm with Solomon (or whoever it was that wrote Ecclesiastes):

Ecclesiastes 12

12 . . . Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.

Whatever conclusion you achieve through this discussion over Super- and Infra - whatsitism, the bottom line is that if you do not believe in Jesus (become born again or whatever way you wish to express this) you will be eternally judged and if you do believe in Jesus you will spend eternity with Him. And is that not what matters in the end?

Well said.

[Reuben Hick]

For those who are not familiar with this theological debate here is a brief summary of all four views with a more specific explanation between superlapsarianism and infralapsariansim below.

Supralapsarianism

1. Elect some, reprobate rest.

2. Create

3. Permit Fall

4. Provide salvation for elect

5. Call elect to salvation

Though my Election was for Supra, I'm more of a Hyper-Supra... because I can't see how any of these jibes with Scripture.

For instance, the idea to Elect some in the unFallen state is to ignore the Fall which condemn all. But I can't go with infra because we are loved in eternity past (Eph 1:4) (literally before creation) which removes everything else from consideration. Even so, the others are vain nonsense Amyrauldism defines the depth of God's love in hypothetical numbers rather than substance (if God's love were defined by numbers, it would still be finite). And Arminianism is Arminianism and has been shown to be in gross error for literally centuries.

But Election would not be necessary without the Fall, so the Fall had to already be anticipated. Futhermore, the Potter is making fine china for dignitaries (The Elect) while also forming mission specific chamber pots (the reprobate). The Potter/Clay picture teaches purpose in both roles, and at its core, the Elect and those formed specifically for wrath, are made strictly for illustrating and demonstrating God's glory.

Since God chose the Elect before the Creation, we know He also predestined the "vessels of Wrath" before Creation. The fact that there were known reprobate argues that the Creation wasn't a huge cosmic experiment, that the Creation with the Fall, not just "permitted" but rather ordained, would make the Fall the foreordained mechanism for justifying the Elect and Reprobate. Creation would be the vehcile for the Fall to be carried out.

Now since there is a Fall, and there is the Elect, we cannot discount God's Justice and therefore there must be a mechanism for in which God may redeem the Elect. This of course is the decree to make Provision. But I don't like how that point is represented because the whole process seems rather anthropocentric and mildly offensive even to read in this form.

Rather, this is all for God's Glory, which means that the whole point and purpose of Creation is to exhibit His glory. If we go to a theocentric view of the decrees, theocentricity restoring the purpose and thus the intent of the decrees, we must therefore say that Christ's death and resurrection was not a fall-back plan, rather it was the Primary directive in which all other things precipitate.

Therefore, I must move to the top of the list the misfortunate rendering "Provide salvation for the Elect" (I would prefer, "Demonstrate God's Holy Attributes")

So now the final list is as shown:

(1) Provide salvation for the Elect.

(2) Ordain the Fall.

(3) Elect some, reprobate the rest.

(4) Create.

(5) Call Elect to salvation.

[Reuben Hick]

I see "Elect those who believe" as trusting in the blood of Jesus.

I'm just curious, what meaning to the word "Elect" is left when it is used in that sentence?

It can't possibly retain its original fundamental meaning "to choose", because there is no choice left in the matter, once the other party makes the "choice", there is allegedly nothing else God can do for He is obligated to to take in each and every one of those who "chose" correctly.

Good question! I saw this as meaning that when we choose salvation in Jesus, we are accepted. or elected, into His family. BurnForChrist, can you clarify? Am I wrong?

Replace "or elected into His family" with "adopted" as in:

Eph 1:4-6 "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace..."

Of course, embedded in this passage is the correct understanding of who did the choosing, and for why that choice was made. (which sort of makes the initial statement seem rather absurd, but I digress)

[MorningGlory]

I can't vote...this is totally beyond my ability to comprehend. I am going to do some research on this since I've never even heard of these things before. Burn, you are truly amazing by the depth of knowledge you have displayed here.

[hopper]

Edited April 17, 2008 by hopper

[sweetycakes]

Though my Election was for Supra, I'm more of a Hyper-Supra... because I can't see how any of these jibes with Scripture.

For instance, the idea to Elect some in the unFallen state is to ignore the Fall which condemn all. But I can't go with infra because we are loved in eternity past (Eph 1:4) (literally before creation) which removes everything else from consideration. Even so, the others are vain nonsense Amyrauldism defines the depth of God's love in hypothetical numbers rather than substance (if God's love were defined by numbers, it would still be finite). And Arminianism is Arminianism and has been shown to be in gross error for literally centuries.

hear, hear! I chose "Supra" (I reason there is value in doing so), but I esteem many refinements of the Dortian model, and elements of the presentation at Dort itself as flawed and inconsistent with both Scripture and a paradoxical and mystical framework of divine logic - God is God and sovereignly unique, even in His thought processes. In this regard we could learn a bit from our Eastern Orthodox brethren. It's wonderful to try and think God's thoughts after Him, but we must do so with an appreciation of our human limitations and the confines of Scriptural revelation. And one must also acknowledge that either position goes beyond the teachings of either Calvin or Augustine, so it is only fair to term them as hyper-Calvinistic, even in light of other disparate, and oft pejoratively termed heretical, distinctions of hyper-Calvinistic thought.

Yep............

I was gonna say the exact, same thing....

[Scarletprayers]

different strokes I guess, but I don't understand why everything has to be classified and itemized, I am, nor or any of us, anything without Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, the what, when, wheres and whys, labels and tags are irrelevant compared to Him.

But, to each his own.............continue and have fun!

[hopper]

Edited April 17, 2008 by hopper

[WillingToDie]

Though my Election was for Supra, I'm more of a Hyper-Supra... because I can't see how any of these jibes with Scripture.

For instance, the idea to Elect some in the unFallen state is to ignore the Fall which condemn all. But I can't go with infra because we are loved in eternity past (Eph 1:4) (literally before creation) which removes everything else from consideration. Even so, the others are vain nonsense Amyrauldism defines the depth of God's love in hypothetical numbers rather than substance (if God's love were defined by numbers, it would still be finite). And Arminianism is Arminianism and has been shown to be in gross error for literally centuries.

hear, hear! I chose "Supra" (I reason there is value in doing so), but I esteem many refinements of the Dortian model, and elements of the presentation at Dort itself as flawed and inconsistent with both Scripture and a paradoxical and mystical framework of divine logic - God is God and sovereignly unique, even in His thought processes. In this regard we could learn a bit from our Eastern Orthodox brethren. It's wonderful to try and think God's thoughts after Him, but we must do so with an appreciation of our human limitations and the confines of Scriptural revelation. And one must also acknowledge that either position goes beyond the teachings of either Calvin or Augustine, so it is only fair to term them as hyper-Calvinistic, even in light of other disparate, and oft pejoratively termed heretical, distinctions of hyper-Calvinistic thought.

Actually, as I recall, Calvin was Supralapsarian.

[Scarletprayers]

different strokes I guess, but I don't understand why everything has to be classified and itemized, I am, nor or any of us, anything without Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, the what, when, wheres and whys, labels and tags are irrelevant compared to Him.

But, to each his own.............continue and have fun!

or, with more complicated theological jargon:

"Accordingly, neither supra- nor infralapsarianism has succeeded in its attempt to solve this problem and to do justice to the many-sidedness of Scripture. To a certain extent this failure is due to the one-sidedness that characterizes both views. In the first place it is incorrect, as we stated before, to define the "final goal" of all things as the revelation of God's mercy in the elect, and of his justice in the reprobate. God's glory and the manifestation of his excellencies is, to be sure, the final goal of all things; but the double state of salvation and damnation is not included in that final goal, but is related to it as a means. No one is able to prove that this double state must of necessity constitute an element in the final goal of God's glory. In all his "outgoing works" God always has in view his own glory; but that he seeks to establish this glory in this and in no other way is to be ascribed to his sovereignty and to nothing else."

"Accordingly, neither the supra- nor the infralapsarian view of predestination is able to do full justice to the truth of Scripture, and to satisfy our theological thinking. The true element in supralapsarianism is: that it emphasizes the unity of the divine decree and the fact that God had one final aim in view, that sin's entrance into the universe was not something unexpected and unlooked for by God but that he willed sin in a certain sense, and that the work of creation was immediately adapted to God's redemptive activity so that even before the fall, i.e., in the creation of Adam, Christ's coming was definitely fixed. And the true element in infralapsarianism is: that the decrees manifest not only a unity but also a diversity (with a view to their several objects), that these decrees reveal not only a teleological but also a causal order, that creation and fall cannot merely be regarded as means to an end, and that sin should be regarded not as an element of progress but rather as an element of disturbance in the universe so that in and by itself it cannot have been willed by God. In general, the formulation of the final goal of all things in such a manner that God reveals his justice in the reprobate and his mercy in the elect is too simple and incomplete. The "state of glory" will be rich and glorious beyond all description."

- Herman Bavinck, Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism

yeah, exactly!