Are you Supralapsarian Infralapsarian Amyraldian?

[Rippon]

So we are presented with a God who has mercy on some and no mercy on others,

Yes, that's what the Scripture teaches:

Romans 9:15 ... I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

Ro. 9:18 : Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

who gives some the ability to repent, but does not give that ability to others,

Yes, he grants repentance and faith to some and not to others.

yet this same God is quoted in the scripture stating that He desires ALL MEN everywhere to repent.

Each and every person is under the obligation to obey the command to repent and believe. They cannot of course, do that under any power of their own accord. Nevertheless, it is still their responsibility to heed what is required.

 

[convicted1]

Yes, that's what the Scripture teaches:

Romans 9:15 ... I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

Ro. 9:18 : Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Yes, he grants repentance and faith to some and not to others.

Each and every person is under the obligation to obey the command to repent and believe. They cannot of course, do that under any power of their own accord. Nevertheless, it is still their responsibility to heed what is required.

 

[Reformed]

Yes, that's what the Scripture teaches:

Romans 9:15 ... I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

Ro. 9:18 : Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Yes, he grants repentance and faith to some and not to others.

Each and every person is under the obligation to obey the command to repent and believe. They cannot of course, do that under any power of their own accord. Nevertheless, it is still their responsibility to heed what is required.

The Creator does not answer to His creation.

 

[Reformed]

If I may be allowed to digress a bit...

Knowing how God works in His will of decree does not change the means of salvation: the preaching of the Gospel. Where some supralapsarians have erred is confusing God's will of decree with the biblical mandate to make disciples. A person cannot become a disciple until they are born again. A person cannot be born again unless the hear and believe the Gospel. Ergo there is a implied mandate to preach the Gospel to all.

The reason I am a supralapsarian is because the idea that God's will of decree was subsequent to the Fall is a deficient view of God's eternality and omniscience. God does not acquire knowledge, nor are His decrees bound by time.

 

[convicted1]

If I may be allowed to digress a bit...

Knowing how God works in His will of decree does not change the means of salvation: the preaching of the Gospel. Where some supralapsarians have erred is confusing God's will of decree with the biblical mandate to make disciples. A person cannot become a disciple until they are born again. A person cannot be born again unless the hear and believe the Gospel. Ergo there is a implied mandate to preach the Gospel to all.

The reason I am a supralapsarian is because the idea that God's will of decree was subsequent to the Fall is a deficient view of God's eternality and omniscience. God does not acquire knowledge, nor are His decrees bound by time.

 

[DHK]

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....

Did Hitler cause the Holocaust because he knew God hated him?
Because he knew he was not one of the elect?
Because God really did hate him?

Or, in spite of God's love toward Hitler, Hitler spurned the love of God and in his own depraved heart shook his fist in the face of God and acted out his anger and hatred of God in the most anti-semitic way possible?

As much as you hate to admit it, God loved Hitler. God died for his sins as well. He loved him as much as he loved you. But Hitler rejected his love.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Did Hitler cause the Holocaust because he knew God hated him?
Because he knew he was not one of the elect?
Because God really did hate him?

Most unsaved people do not know about correct biblical teaching...they do not care for it. Unsaved man hates God's electing purpose when they hear of it.

Or, in spite of God's love toward Hitler, Hitler spurned the love of God and in his own depraved heart shook his fist in the face of God and acted out his anger and hatred of God in the most anti-semitic way possible?

All unsaved persons are haters of God.Even the religious ones.

As much as you hate to admit it, God loved Hitler.

No....He loves those in Christ....He hates all the workers of iniquity.

God died for his sins as well.

Not unless Hitler repented in that bunker before he left his body.

He loved him as much as he loved you

.

Certainly not.....This is not the biblical message....Did Moses give Pharoah the 4 spiritual laws????
Pharoah...God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life;
1] First he will send plagues upon your land

2] He then will kill all the firstborn

3] He is going to drown your army in the RED SEA

4] Then He is going to cast your reprobate soul into hell

No....This message did not make it in Moses day.....it does not square with reality as revealed in scripture.

But Hitler rejected his love.

Anyone not elected and given a New heart by the unseen work of the Spirit will always reject God as those reprobates in ACts 7;51...they always resist even in hell they will be unthankful and unholy.

 

[DHK]

.Did Moses give Pharoah the 4 spiritual laws????

I don't know?
Who did it?
Did they catch the culprit?

 

[robustheologian]

Here is a good example of hypercalvinism:

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

This is on the money.

 

[robustheologian]

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

Yeah I do to. However I will say that while all supralapsarians aren't hyper-Calvinists, I've never heard of a hyper-Calvinist that was an infralapsarian. There are great arguments for both views...i just lean towards infralapsarianism.

 

[Rippon]

Regarding Phil Johnson's take on what constitutes hyper-Calvinism :

While I like and respect him, his explanation is not accurate. That's why David Allen and others charge his good friend James White of H-C. Even though Phil came to White's defense and denied any anything of a hyper-Calvinistic slant could possibly be evident in the life and ministry of the Reformed Baptist scholar.

The central core of hyper-Calvinistism has to be their conviction that the Gospel should not be preached in an indiscriminate manner. However, Dr. White obviously preaches and teaches to audences of all descriptions. He believes in delivering the Message with liberality.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah I do to. However I will say that while all supralapsarians aren't hyper-Calvinists, I've never heard of a hyper-Calvinist that was an infralapsarian. There are great arguments for both views...i just lean towards infralapsarianism.

As do I....
And so did the major Confessions of the Faith...

 

[Yeshua1]

If I may be allowed to digress a bit...

Knowing how God works in His will of decree does not change the means of salvation: the preaching of the Gospel. Where some supralapsarians have erred is confusing God's will of decree with the biblical mandate to make disciples. A person cannot become a disciple until they are born again. A person cannot be born again unless the hear and believe the Gospel. Ergo there is a implied mandate to preach the Gospel to all.

The reason I am a supralapsarian is because the idea that God's will of decree was subsequent to the Fall is a deficient view of God's eternality and omniscience. God does not acquire knowledge, nor are His decrees bound by time.

That is indeed where the Hypers go off into error, as the clear mandate from jesus is to preach Him to all sinners, and that provides for the Lord to use that to bring His own elect unto salvation in Jesus!

 

[robustheologian]

The reason I am a supralapsarian is because the idea that God's will of decree was subsequent to the Fall is a deficient view of God's eternality and omniscience. God does not acquire knowledge, nor are His decrees bound by time.

The difference between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism isn't one of time but of logic...anyone who correctly understands these terms would never say any decree is subsequent (that term refers to chronological ordering).

It could be said the idea that God's decree of the Fall was subsequent to the His decree of election is also a deficient view of God's eternality and omniscience. But there is no timeline to God's decrees. That's why the whole lapsarian debate is tricky.

 

[The American Dream]

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.

So you admit that man has a finite mind. Man is in a fallen state. What gives you the idea that man can respond to a Divine call beyond the boundaries of his fallen state? What is it that makes you doubt the sovereignty of God in all aspects of salvation?

You have said this in post after post. Why does man having or not having a free choice have to do with God being or not being the author of sin? The fact is man cannot respond to God without external divine intervention, and God is not the author of sin. Just because your finite or my finite mind cannot logically understand it does not change the facts of Scripture.

 

[DHK]

So you admit that man has a finite mind. Man is in a fallen state. What gives you the idea that man can respond to a Divine call beyond the boundaries of his fallen state? What is it that makes you doubt the sovereignty of God in all aspects of salvation?

What makes you think I do doubt the sovereignty of God? God is a sovereign God. I never said anything to the contrary.

You have said this in post after post. Why does man having or not having a free choice have to do with God being or not being the author of sin?

Why are you bringing this up here? I have talked about God's love here. But not once in this thread have I mentioned God being the author of sin.

The fact is man cannot respond to God without external divine intervention, and God is not the author of sin. Just because your finite or my finite mind cannot logically understand it does not change the facts of Scripture.

I never said God is the author of sin. But some Calvinists have. Go argue it out among yourselves. It is not my belief.
Here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2210542&postcount=59

God is a God of love. His love is incomprehensible to the human mind.
God himself declares that his thoughts are higher than man's thoughts;
His ways are higher than man's ways.

Paul declares:
Rom 11:33-36
(33) O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
(34) For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
(35) Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
(36) For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Do you believe the finite mind of man can comprehend God?
I believe that God has made a way for man to respond to God's love through Jesus Christ.
I also believe you don't interpret Scripture properly to come to a conclusion to say that man cannot respond when clearly he can.

God said to Adam:
"In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Adam "died." when he ate.
And yet this "dead Adam" still conversed with God.
How was this possible?

 

[The American Dream]

I did not say you said God is the author of sin, but you have certainly linked it to Calvinists who believe all aspects of salvation are of God. You have made several if/then statements concerning this. In other words, if man needs outside Divine intervention to respond to Christ, then God is the author of sin. Your other if/then statement is, which supports your conclusion, is that if man has the free choice to respond or not, then God is not the author of sin. Those are your conclusions, linking two doctrines that seem logical to you. As you said, Gods ways are higher than man's. He understands what He created to the greatest detail. We do not.

 

[DHK]

I did not say you said God is the author of sin, but you have certainly linked it to Calvinists who believe all aspects of salvation are of God. You have made several if/then statements concerning this. In other words, if man needs outside Divine intervention to respond to Christ, then God is the author of sin. Your other if/then statement is, which supports your conclusion, is that if man has the free choice to respond or not, then God is not the author of sin. Those are your conclusions, linking two doctrines that seem logical to you. As you said, Gods ways are higher than man's. He understands what He created to the greatest detail. We do not.

Neither do we have to fall victims to "it is a mystery" conclusion when the plan of salvation is so clearly revealed to us. It is a simple message and was never meant to be complicated.
John 3:16; Acts 10:43; Rom.10:9,10; John 5:24; 1John 5:11,12; 1John 2:1,2; and so many more, if taken just as they read with no preconceived ideas preclude election and predestination. They present the gospel simply that whosoever believes in Christ shall have eternal life, and that without condition.

None of these scriptures are conditioned by such phrases as: "if you are one of the elect," "if you have been chosen before the foundation of the world."
The Bible was simply meant to be read as it is written, not with a "Calvin mindset."

 

[The American Dream]

That is correct. You created the if then statements by linking two unrelated doctrines together, ie the origin of sin and free will.

 

[Yeshua1]

Neither do we have to fall victims to "it is a mystery" conclusion when the plan of salvation is so clearly revealed to us. It is a simple message and was never meant to be complicated.
John 3:16; Acts 10:43; Rom.10:9,10; John 5:24; 1John 5:11,12; 1John 2:1,2; and so many more, if taken just as they read with no preconceived ideas preclude election and predestination. They present the gospel simply that whosoever believes in Christ shall have eternal life, and that without condition.

None of these scriptures are conditioned by such phrases as: "if you are one of the elect," "if you have been chosen before the foundation of the world."
The Bible was simply meant to be read as it is written, not with a "Calvin mindset."

Where does the scripture teach though to us that sinners still have their 'free will" intact to accept jesus on their own accord?