|
Post by John McGlone on Apr 14, 2008 20:33:59 GMT -5
Su`pra`lap`sa´ri`an n. 1. (Eccl. Hist.) One of that class of Calvinists who believed that God's decree of election determined that man should fall, in order that the opportunity might be furnished of securing the redemption of a part of the race, the decree of salvation being conceived of as formed before or beyond, and not after or following, the lapse, or fall. Cf. Infralapsarian. a. 1. Of or pertaining to the Supralapsarians, or their doctrine.
vs.
In`fra`lap`sa´ri`an n. 1. (Eccl. Hist.) One of that class of Calvinists who consider the decree of election as contemplating the apostasy as past and the elect as being at the time of election in a fallen and guilty state; - opposed to Supralapsarian. The former considered the election of grace as a remedy for an existing evil; the latter regarded the fall as a part of God's original purpose in regard to men.
|
|
djpray
Junior Member
"Filipino" Preacher Man!
Posts: 86
|
Post by djpray on Apr 16, 2008 5:38:51 GMT -5
John, I guess I would fall into the "infralapsarian" category. But you know, I think I have some friends who were born out of a "cesarian" background......hehehe just joking....I had to put that in there... Derek
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 16, 2008 9:06:21 GMT -5
So Supralapsarianism says that God decreed the fall so that God could save some, while infralapsarianism says that God decreed the salvation of some after the fall already happened?
My question would be this: If God foreknew the fall of all men, and foreknew the salvation of the elect, from all of eternity, how could He decree either? If all is foreknown, nothing is left to be determined.
I think that is why I've read multiple Calvinist theologians who said that God's foreknowledge is based upon His predestination, that God foreknows all things because God has determined all things. (I guess that means it was "open" until God determined it.)
(And regarding Supralapsarianism, it seems absurd to say that we needed to fall so that we would need Jesus, and we need Jesus because we have fallen. So the fall is based upon salvation and salvation is based upon the fall? How could the foundation or reason for both be each other?)
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 16, 2008 9:13:06 GMT -5
From what I know, the "Sups" say that man never had free will because God decreed the fall. The "Infras" say that Adam did have free will but lost it at the fall. Rather than decreeing the fall, God reacted to it by "the election." One says the doctrine of free will was true at one time, but now it isn't. The other says there has never been free will.
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Apr 20, 2008 21:36:36 GMT -5
Josh, thanks for the clarity.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 21, 2008 8:44:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 21, 2008 8:46:20 GMT -5
Here is an interesting blog post I seen that talks about the different views of sovereignty: 1. Meticulous sovereignty: God is the instrumental cause behind every action and reaction there has ever been. In other words, you chose white socks instead of the black socks because God caused it to happen. You have an itch on your eyebrow right now because God is actively causing it. In other words, every molecule that bounces into another is a result of God active agency in being the first and instrumental cause to the action.
This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.
God is actively controlling everything.Â
Adherents: Hyper-Calvinists and some Calvinists
2. Providential sovereignty: While God is bringing about his will in everything (Eph 1:11), his will is not the instrumental cause of all that happens. God’s will plays a providential role in “causing” all things. In other words, all that happens happens because God did in some sense will it, but secondary causes are usually the instrumental cause behind the action. In the case of your socks, you chose them because you decided to, but it was also part of God’s will.  God allows evil as it is part of his imperfect will to bring about a perfect end, but he is not the instrumental cause of evil.
This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.
God is in control of everything.
Adherents: Calvinists and some Arminians
3. Providential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is more of an oversight. He has a general plan, but is not married to the details. When necessary, God will intervene in the affairs of humanity to bring about his purpose, but this does not necessarily involve an intimate engagement with all that happens. God does not care what color socks you pick unless it somehow effects his meta plan.
This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.
God could control everything, but only controls some things.
Adherents: Arminians and some Calvinists
4. Influential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is self-limited. God could control things, but to preserve human freedom, he will not intervene in the affairs of men to the degree that the human will is decisively bent in one direction or another. He is hopeful that his influence will be persuasive to change a person’s heart or to guide them to his will, but is not sure if this will happen. Being all-wise, however, God will make strategic moves in people’s lives that will manipulate the situation to his advantage.
This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.
God could control everything, but decides only to influence.
Adherents: Open Theist Arminians and some Arminians www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/04/18/what-do-you-mean-god-is-sovereign-four-options/
|
|