The Order Of God's Decrees: Supralapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism

You may if you change your title. Some may not know these are two different degrees of calvinism.

 

I guess I was one of hte few that had heard of supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism before. But that doesn't mean I'm any better at pronouncing them

 

Bavinck states in part:

The logical order according to supra:

1. a decree determining the purpose of all things, namely, the revelation of God's virtues; specifically, the revelation of his mercy in the salvation of a definite number of possible men; and the revelation of his justice in the perdition of another definite number of possible men
2. a decree to create the men thus elected and reprobated.
3. a decree to permit them to fall.
4. a decree to provide a Mediator for the elect and through him to justify them, and to condemn the reprobate.

The logical order according to infra:

1. a decree to create man in holiness and blessedness.
2. a decree to permit man to fall.
3. a decree to elect some out of this fallen multitude and to leave others in their misery.
4. a decree to bring about the salvation of the elect through Christ. See II, F.

It appears to me that Scripture supports infra, particularly point #1 [at least the way Bavinck compares the two].

Ecclesiastes 7:29, states: Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

It also seems to me that if supra were correct the decree to provide a Mediator for the elect and through Him to justify the elect would have to precede all other decrees. To elect some to Salvation before there is a means provided for that salvation seems illogical. But please note my closing sentence.

Also it seems that if the supra is correct the decree to elect before the fall then necessitates the fall rather than permits the fall.

But to be perfectly honest I believe from a practical standpoint the debate between the infra and supra approaches that of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"? Such a debate stems from man's desire to understand and prioritize the mind of God which is impossible. And i am in over my head!

 

I agree, these distinctions are silly. We cannot know the mind of God in these things, because Scripture does not reveal them to us. And what does it matter? God has perfect knowledge anyway - He knew what He was going to do all along.

 

I agree, these distinctions are silly. We cannot know the mind of God in these things, because Scripture does not reveal them to us. And what does it matter? God has perfect knowledge anyway - He knew what He was going to do all along. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

The logical order according to infra:

1. a decree to create man in holiness and blessedness.
2. a decree to permit man to fall.
3. a decree to have Jesus die on the cross for the sins of the world.
4. a decree to save some on the basis of foreknowledge and to pass over others who persist in rebellion.

You cannot leave out sublapsarianism. This is where many people are, both Calvinists and Arminians.

 

I love ya Andy T. but I don't think the distinctions are silly. It would be silly to unessecarily split over them, but just like any other doctrinal issue, some of us have stronger convictions than others on finer points, and those finer points can become important to us over time. BTW I am supra. But I am still learning. I guess I just don't like the word silly associated with the discussion.

 

O.k., "silly" is probably too flippant a word. I don't have a problem if people want to discuss these things philosophically, but that's all it is - philosophy, not Scriptural doctrine. And like you said, not something to remotely divide over, or even get intense about.

 

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

That's it! I'm dividing from all of you! (That's an "all" that is limited to the ones on this post)