Are you Supralapsarian Infralapsarian Amyraldian?

[Yeshua1]

If you see yourself as a calvinist?

 

[robustheologian]

Though there isn't a ton of evidence of a logical order of God's decrees, I would have to say infralapsarianism is the mainstream Calvinist and biblical order of decrees. Amyraldianism is contradicts the the particularity of Christ's saving work and supralapsarianism (the view held by hyper-Calvinists) can turn into evidence of God being the author of sin.

 

[Rippon]

Though there isn't a ton of evidence of a logical order of God's decrees, I would have to say infralapsarianism is the mainstream Calvinist and biblical order of decrees.

I agree with most of the above, with the exception of "biblical order of decrees."

Amyraldianism is contradicts the the particularity of Christ's saving work

True.

and supralapsarianism (the view held by hyper-Calvinists)

All hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarian, but all supralapsarians are not hyper-Calvinists.

can turn into evidence of God being the author of sin.

Please expalin.

 

[robustheologian]

I agree with most of the above, with the exception of "biblical order of decrees."

I say it’s biblical in the sense that the order of decrees in infralapsarianism reflects the order of events found in the Bible. First, God created man. Second, He permitted the Fall. Then God decided to save sinners by sending Jesus. Finally, Jesus actually died to provide salvation.

All hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarian, but all supralapsarians are not hyper-Calvinists.

True.

Please explain.

Supralapsarianism can come off as God setting up mankind for the Fall for no other reason than to save those He decreed to in the beginning of His decrees.

 

[convicted1]

Supralapsarianism can come off as God setting up mankind for the Fall for no other reason than to save those He decreed to in the beginning of His decrees.

I sorta lean towars the supra-side of election, but I don't see it that God ordained/decreed the fall of the non-elect, but He did decree the election of His sheep...

 

[Bro. James]

Call it a tulip, rose, or lily; man is totally depraved by nature including his theology. God took care of man before the foundation of the world. Salvation is of the Lord. Jesus paid it all.

Eph. 2: 8-10

How about Grace-ism?

Pink got it right. Not many seem to understand the real relationship between depravity and Grace.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[PreachTony]

I sorta lean towars the supra-side of election, but I don't see it that God ordained/decreed the fall of the non-elect, but He did decree the election of His sheep...

Bro Willis - How does God ordain/decree the election of one group without also ordaining/decreeing the downfall of the non-elect group? Doesn't the first condition naturally set up the logical existence of the other?

 

[convicted1]

Bro Willis - How does God ordain/decree the election of one group without also ordaining/decreeing the downfall of the non-elect group? Doesn't the first condition naturally set up the logical existence of the other?

When Adam sinned, everyone fell in Adam. It was Adam's fault, not God. God chose us, the church to give to Jesus to atone for our sins. In Adam we fell, in Christ we raise. I have been pondering the two, supra- & infra-, not entirely in either camp, though I lean supra-. Why?

Acts 15:18...

 

[PreachTony]

When Adam sinned, everyone fell in Adam. It was Adam's fault, not God. God chose us, the church to give to Jesus to atone for our sins. In Adam we fell, in Christ we raise.

That doesn't really answer the question, though. I'm not trying to uncover the reason for the fall. That Adam made the decision to sin is clear to everyone except the hyper-Calvinist, who reasons that God authored that sin in order to redeem His Elect.

No, I'm trying to figure this one out: In Calvinism, God chooses out His Elect before the foundation of the World. He knew that Adam would sin, yet He still created Adam with a free will that allowed him to sin. Before any of this, though, God chose a specific number of individuals to be His Elect. The obvious conclusion of this choosing is that God also chose a group not to be His Elect.

Think of it like this: If there are ten apples on a table, and I pick out four for myself, then I obviously decided that those four were more worthy, and the remaining six were not good enough for my selection. I chose a group to take with me, and a group to leave on the table. That's Election, in the Calvinist sense, as I see it.

 

[Iconoclast]

If a person goes to an orphanage that has 1000 possible adoptable orphans...and they choose two....are you glad they were able to chose two, or do you fault them and seek to find reasons why they did not select the other 998?

 

[Rippon]

God chose a specific number of individuals to be His Elect.

Praise God for His glorious grace.

The obvious conclusion of this choosing is that God also chose a group not to be His Elect.

God did not elect everyone. Are you complaining about that? He is God, the Lord of all. He is the perfect right to choose those whom He may.

He mercies whom He wills and hardens whom He wills.

If there are ten apples on a table, and I pick out four for myself, then I obviously decided that those four were more worthy, and the remaining six were not good enough for my selection. I chose a group to take with me, and a group to leave on the table.

But your example is not at all corresponding to the biblical model. There is not among those He has chosen anything meritorious. The Bible does not say some are more worthy than others. That is not at all His basis for choosing His own.

That's Election, in the Calvinist sense, as I see it.

Well, your point of view is not at all how Calvinists see it, because it does not square with Scripture.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm supercalifragilisticexpialidotious

 

[Reformed]

supralapsarianism (the view held by hyper-Calvinists) can turn into evidence of God being the author of sin.

I happen to keep company with a quite a few supralapsarians who are not hyper-Calvinists.

 

[Revmitchell]

If a person goes to an orphanage that has 1000 possible adoptable orphans...and they choose two....are you glad they were able to chose two, or do you fault them and seek to find reasons why they did not select the other 998?

A very poor analogy. God is not limited to just two. The person is.

 

[DHK]

A very poor analogy. God is not limited to just two. The person is.

In fact God has no limits at all unlike man.
His love has no limits; His grace unabounding.
The love of God is incomprehensible to the finite mind of man. He not only can take in all one thousand, he will take in all who will call on his name.

 

[Revmitchell]

In fact God has no limits at all unlike man.
His love has no limits; His grace unabounding.
The love of God is incomprehensible to the finite mind of man. He not only can take in all one thousand, he will take in all who will call on his name.

That's right. Here is a good example of hypercalvinism:

So what, then, is a hyper-Calvinist?

Part of the confusion about this term no doubt arises from the use of the prefix “hyper.” “Hyper” does not refer, as many might think, to enthusiasm or excitement. Rather its basic meaning is along the lines of “excessive or excessively.” You might think of the word hyperactive which means “excessively active.” Hyper- comes from the Greek prefix huper-, which comes from the preposition huper, meaning “over, beyond.” So a hyper-Calvinist is one who goes beyond and over the bounds of what Calvinism teaches (and thus over the bounds of what the Bible teaches). He is excessive in his application of the doctrines. This manifests itself in an over-emphasis of one aspect of God’s character at the expense of another. Hyper-Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty but de-emphasize God’s love. They tend to set God’s sovereignty at odds with the clear biblical call to human responsibility. We can see how these are worked out as we look at a concise definition of the term. Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

http://www.challies.com/articles/hyper-calvinism-a-brief-definition

 

[PreachTony]

Praise God for His glorious grace.

Amen and amen! I do praise God for His glorious grace.

God did not elect everyone. Are you complaining about that? He is God, the Lord of all. He is the perfect right to choose those whom He may.

He mercies whom He wills and hardens whom He wills.

So we are presented with a God who has mercy on some and no mercy on others, who gives some the ability to repent, but does not give that ability to others, yet this same God is quoted in the scripture stating that He desires ALL MEN everywhere to repent. We're left with a God lamenting Jerusalem not being willing to turn to Him, when it was that very same God preventing Jerusalem from turning to Him.

But your example is not at all corresponding to the biblical model. There is not among those He has chosen anything meritorious. The Bible does not say some are more worthy than others. That is not at all His basis for choosing His own.

I agree. My example was a heat-of-the-moment attempt. I admit that it was not the best attempt at an analogy.

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, NONE of us will even call upon His name in order to get saved unless God Himself provides to us the needed faith and grace to do such though!

And you have the really big problem if you hold to God intended the death of Jesus to save all sinners, as either he cannot save all sinners, or he has chosen not to do such!

 

[Iconoclast]

A very poor analogy. God is not limited to just two. The person is.

It was not meant to be a direct correlation. ....the question is valid......do you fault the couple for their positive choice.....

by extension. ....do you fault God for His positive choice....if all are not chosen

 

[Iconoclast]

In fact God has no limits at all unlike man.
His love has no limits; His grace unabounding.
The love of God is incomprehensible to the finite mind of man. He not only can take in all one thousand, he will take in all who will call on his name.

Gods love has an object.....His church......He loves them with an everlasting love....He tells us very clearly as opposed to new age philosophy that many hold....