Supralapsarianism vs Infralapsarianism


#1

Today I discovered (thanks to Luke :slight_smile: ):

"]Lapsarianism is the set of Calvinist doctrines describing the theoretical order of God’s decree (in his mind, before Creation), in particular concerning the order of his decree for the fall of man and reprobation. …

Supralapsarianism (also antelapsarianism) is the view that God’s decrees of election and reprobation logically preceded the decree of the fall, while infralapsarianism (also called postlapsarianism and sublapsarianism) asserts that God’s decrees of election and reprobation logically succeeded the decree of the fall.I found it particularly interesting to find out there’s a range of views within Calvinism on the topic, as I had always thought Calvin was Supralapsarianism, and therefore that was the only option for Calvinists :confused:

I’ve been thinking about this topic a lot recently, wondering about the fairness of predestining people to ECP/T before they are created (i.e. before they had sinned) :open_mouth:


#2

When certain premises are assumed, logical progressions often lead to ridiculous or seemingly irrational beliefs in order to remain with those premises.
I’ve found less logical problems with UR than either Calvinism (which I’ve never held with) or Armineanism (to which I once leaned). It was when the concept of Universalism was first introduced to me that, even before I saw evidence from Scripture, it seemed to offer more coherent answers.


#3

I found it particularly interesting to find out there’s a range of views within Calvinism on the topic, as I had always thought Calvin was Supralapsarianism, and therefore that was the only option for Calvinists :confused:

I’ve been thinking about this topic a lot recently, wondering about the fairness of predestining people to ECP/T before they are created (i.e. before they had sinned) :open_mouth:

I suppose the difference might (to some degree) describe a distinction between Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists? I could easily see Hyper-Calvs. being supra, and “regular” Calvs. perhaps leaning more toward infra.


#4

Cornelius Van Til, (ironically a supralapsarian) developed a transcendental argument for the existence of God. The argument basically says, we know God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary. He employed various catch phrases to illustrate the idea, such as “the greatest proof of Christianity is we can’t prove anything without it.” and “It’s not that unbelievers can’t count. They simply can’t account for their counting.”

I find this ironic because the transcendental argument can just as easily be used to defend universalism against both Arminianism and Calvinism. When we examine all three systems for internal coherence only Universalism survives.


#5

It’s not that Calvinists can’t think; they just can’t think through certain walls of stone erected by what they believe to be core doctrine. Never mind it isn’t really the message of scripture. They are often brilliant and have much to teach us all – as long as we don’t ask what’s behind those thick stone walls or whether they’re absolutely sure the walls should even be there at all.


#6

Putting it another way, the debate is:

option a.) The decision by Righteousness Himself never to lead some unrighteous creatures of Righteousness to righteousness, logically follows the decision of Righteousness Himself that some creatures of Righteousness shall be permanently unrighteous.

option b.) The decision by Righteousness Himself that some creatures of Righteousness shall be permanently unrighteous, logically follows the decision of Righteousness Himself never to lead some unrighteous creatures of Righteousness to righteousness.

Well, obviously, this is a matter too mysterious and obscure for human reasoning to ever reach a conclusion between, and to even try would be to to presume to be on par with God, so even debating which one follows logically from the other is an act of unrighteousness!

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/nono3.gif


#7

That was well put.


#8

Y’all are giving me flashbacks. :astonished:

For half a second, I thought I was back on a Calvinist web forum.

It takes a “lapse” in judgment to begin to entertain such lapsarian questions.


#9

A verse I read yesterday hit me right between the eyes.

“The Lord is in his Temple. Let all the earth be silent.”


#10

I gave arguments why this distinction does not matter:

lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/nakled-calvinism-why-the-difference-between-single-and-double-predestination-does-not-matter/

Cheers.


#11

I was an infralapsarian for a long time because i found that the supra view defames the character of God and to steal a phrase from John Wesley, “makes God out to be worse than the devil.”

The best argument for the supra view, that I’ve found is Heman Hoeksema’s “builder analogy” found in his Reformed Dogmatics. He was a hyper-calvinist who was throw out of the CRC for his rejection of the “sincere offer of the Gospel.”

Ironically, now that I’m an EU I have seem the validity of the supra position. The difference is that as an EU I see that the end result of our master builder is universal redemption, which makes his plan one that is worthy of his loving character.


#12

I think the only way Calvinism can make sense is under the assumption of universalism.


#13

Actually, it makes perfect sense to embrace John Calvin theologically and Arthur Schopenhauer philosophically. It makes me so happy, I can hardly contain myself. :exclamation: :laughing:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmCnluxSkySkqdURVVpiG8n5jSbhE2rYVomie82L4RNGNun1XSBQ

I wonder what a car ride with Nietzsche & Schopenhauer, would be like :question: :laughing:


#14

Or perhaps, “It’s not that Calvinists can’t think. Its just that they’re only allowed to think what the Westminster divines were thinking.” Meaning that no transcendental reasoning is permissible for the Calvinist. No one is allowed to lift the hood and examine the engine. no one can question the standards of so-called orthodox established in the 1600s. To think outside the Calvinist box subjects the thinker to castigation as a heretic.