Was John Calvin A Hyper-Calvinist Or A Moderate Calvinist?

[Paul33]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Therefore, I am a Sublapsarian.

I think you would more properly be called Amyraldian. Sublapsarian is the same thing as infralapsarianism, although I know there is one systematic theology--can't remember which--that calls amyraldianism "sublapsarianism".

But that's wrong. The prefixes "sub" and "infra" refer to the placement of the decree of the fall in regards the decree of election, and they both mean that the decree of election comes directly under or below the decree of the fall.

Here's an article I wrote for the World Magazine Theology Weblog on the order of the decrees of Amyraldianism, in case you're interested: The Ordered Lists of Salvation: God's Eternal Decrees 5.

I haven't completed the articles on infra and supra yet, but I am knee deep in the research.

And have you checked Calvins's commentary on 1 John 2:2? That throws a bit of a monkey-wrench in the idea he believed in general atonement. </font>[/QUOTE]Erickson's ST refers to an infralapsarian this way.

1. The decree to create human beings.
2. The decree to permit the fall.

So far the same as sublapsarianism. But now the switch.

3. The decree to elect some and reprobate others.
4. The decree to provide salvation only for the elect.

 

[Rhetorician]

To all who have an ear:

I was just wondering if any here who talk about "the Doctrines of Grace," "Predestination," "Calvinism," "Infralapsarianism," "Supralapsarianism," et al have ever read the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" written by none other than--JOHN CALVIN?

I have found that reading Calvin sheads a great deal of light on "Calvinism" and all of the attendant doctrines appertaining thereto!

Just a thought! And please, before you chastise me; forgive the "toungue-n-cheek" and sarcasm. My wife and daughters say it is my least likable quality?

sdg!

rd

 

[Paul33]

johnp,

Have you considered the OT atonement practice.

First the priest sacrifices the animal for the sins of the people. Then he enters the Holy of Holies and intercedes for the people.

Take a look at the book of Hebrews. I would suggest that first Jesus dies on the cross as our substitute and sacrifice. Then he enters into the presence of God the Father as our priest to present his blood and intercede.

If the atonement process is two steps, then it is very reasonble to believe that Jesus died for the sins of all people, but only intercedes for the elect.

 

[Paul33]

Rhet,

Well, Calvin did say not to look to deeply into some of these mysteries. But what fun would that be?

 

[russell55]

Erickson's ST refers to an infralapsarian this way.

A. H. Strong was the first systematic to do that, and maybe Erickson copied Strong. Historically, that wasn't the way the labels were used, but rather they were both used for the same ordering of the decrees--the order that put the fall right below election. Sub and Infra were just different labels meaning the same thing. Somehow Strong confused things in his Systematic, and that mistake shows up now and then in other place as people get their info from Strong. Theissen, for instance, in the first edition of his systematic, used "sub" for amyraldianism as opposed to infralapsarianism, but he rewrote things for later editions.

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by Rhetorician:
To all who have an ear:

I was just wondering if any here who talk about "the Doctrines of Grace," "Predestination," "Calvinism," "Infralapsarianism," "Supralapsarianism," et al have ever read the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" written by none other than--JOHN CALVIN?

I have found that reading Calvin sheads a great deal of light on "Calvinism" and all of the attendant doctrines appertaining thereto!

Just a thought! And please, before you chastise me; forgive the "toungue-n-cheek" and sarcasm. My wife and daughters say it is my least likable quality?

sdg!

rd

Read it. It's not that thick.

I found many things there that I really liked how he expressed them, but also many things with which I could not agree with him.

FA

 

[Paul33]

Erickson, as pointed out lists:

Supralapsarianism
Infralapsarianism
Sublapsariansim (unlimited atonement)

Theiesen lists:

Supralapsarianism
Infralapsarianism = Sublapsarianism
But then reverses the order of 3 and 4 making it the same as Erickson's Sublapsarianism without giving it a name.

Strong lists

Supra
Sub
And then speaks of two different orders within sub that equal Erickson's infra and sub.

Grudem lists:

Supra and Infra, but only in a footnote.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Rhetorician.

I have found that reading Calvin sheads a great deal of light on "Calvinism" and all of the attendant doctrines appertaining thereto!

Ok clever clogs what's the answer? It's the Calvinist defence, we don't know what 'he said' but 'the scripture says' is I think a main plank of Calvinism.

My wife and daughters say it is my least likable quality?

I'm glad to see you do not care.

Hello Paul.

First the priest sacrifices the animal for the sins of the people.

The priest sacrificed the goat and collected it's blood. It is the blood that proves the animal is dead. The priest then goes into the tent and shows God the blood, intercession done. Atonement is a reconciliation achieved through blood not a continuing intercessing in that way? We are saved by the death of Christ not His intercession if that intercession is more than His blood, His death.

then it is very reasonble to believe that Jesus died for the sins of all people I don't believe it is reasonable simply because some people will have to pay their own sins and this is not possible if Jesus paid it and it goes against scripture. 1 Sam 3:14 says He did not atone for Eli's kids. Limited atonement is proved I think. The debt is owed to the Father, Jesus paid the Father the full amount owed, if He did that for everyone then the Father will not demand it from anyone.

Amyraldianism just means you are not alone.

john.

 

[russell55]

That's why I usually call them "amyraldianism" and "infralapsarianism", and just use the lable sublapsarian at all--it just confuses things.

Warfield calls them supra, infra and amyraldian.

BTW, Theissen's section on this is considered confused (at best) by people who know more than I do. It's extremely difficult to make much sense out of it.

 

[Faith alone]

Is there really any value to considering the various lapsarianisms? Can anything really be determined about the logical order from scripture?

FA

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by russell55:
[QB]

My logic concluded that since Esau was sent to Hell before he had done good or bad then good and bad were not part of the equation in determining destination but it was God's Sovereign choice in election.

Not sure who originally said this, and whether they "meant it" or were "questioning it", in teh above quote, as for some reason, my computer is reporducing this page at about four times normal "width" and I am finding what is posted difficult to read. The words "sent to Hell before" appeared on the screen, so I "chased them down" ,and read this.

Where is the Scriptural basis for this claim? Did I somehow miss it?
"The elder shall serve the younger", spoken before the twins were born, and "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" referring to the descendants of the two, in the nations named for them, and spoken centuries after either physically lived, is NOT tantamount to " ...since Esau was sent to Hell before he had done good or bad... ", in any way, at least in my book.

The statement may or may not, be completely or partially, true or false. Regardless, it needs a bit more "Theo-logia" (God's Word) support, regardless of how much 'Theological' support one can muster for any position.
In His grace,
Ed

 

[russell55]

Is there really any value to considering the various lapsarianisms? Can anything really be determined about the logical order from scripture?

Every view of how people are saved has an order of God's eternal decrees. The people holding that viewpoint might not realize it, but how they see God's work in salvation translates backwards into a logical order to God's decrees. Calvinism is odd because it actually has three different orders of decrees within it, so Calvinists often are aware of the order of decrees issue, while others aren't. But everyone's got 'em, because everyone has some sort of idea of how it was they were saved.

So yes, as far as scripture informs our view of how God saves people, our order of decrees will be scriptural.

The value to considering the decrees? I think it helps us understand our own systems better, for one. It helps us see problems and strengths to the systems we hold to, and understand how our view of salvation differs from that of others.

Not everyone, of course, is even interested. But for those who are, considering the subject is a valuable exercise.

BTW, the commonest North American evangelical/fundamental view of the order of decrees would be something like this:

Create
Permit fall
Provide salvation for all
Call all to salvation
Elect those who believe

(This is taken from Theissen's systematic theology.)

 

[Rhetorician]

FaithAlone,

It might make a difference in how one might understands God!?

Did He have a plan before all of creation?

Or;

Did God have to react in some way and come up with a plan after Adam sinned?

If you can and are willing to fit these two ideas into the "sub-" or "infra-" positions respectively or alternately; then, it may make take you in a different or alternative view on such basic issues as say--the absolute sovereign of God.

These two views have tremendous implications for much of the other theology that one might espouse. That is one thing that Calvin argues overall and throughout the "Institutes;" if we go wrong on the Doctrines of God, then we are bound & doomed to go awry every where else--are we not?

Think about it!

sdg!

rd

 

[Paul33]

I'm glad you said "may."

Because I believe in a sublapsarian position and the absolute sovereignty of God.

 

[J.D.]

Somebody educate me on this - I thought that both supra and sub positions were calvinist postions only. And if that is so, then what would the arminian (Thiesson) system be called?

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Is there really any value to considering the various lapsarianisms? Can anything really be determined about the logical order from scripture?

Every view of how people are saved has an order of God's eternal decrees. The people holding that viewpoint might not realize it, but how they see God's work in salvation translates backwards into a logical order to God's decrees. Calvinism is odd because it actually has three different orders of decrees within it, so Calvinists often are aware of the order of decrees issue, while others aren't. But everyone's got 'em, because everyone has some sort of idea of how it was they were saved.

So yes, as far as scripture informs our view of how God saves people, our order of decrees will be scriptural.

The value to considering the decrees? I think it helps us understand our own systems better, for one. It helps us see problems and strengths to the systems we hold to, and understand how our view of salvation differs from that of others.

Not everyone, of course, is even interested. But for those who are, considering the subject is a valuable exercise.

BTW, the commonest North American evangelical/fundamental view of the order of decrees would be something like this:

Create
Permit fall
Provide salvation for all
Call all to salvation
Elect those who believe

(This is taken from Theissen's systematic theology.) </font>[/QUOTE]Russell,

Thx, I appreciate this. And I have looked into this also, though I do not see where scipture itself specifically delineates. We're not talking the ordo salutis exactly.


BTW, shouldn't thisreally be about whether Calvin was a classical Calvinist or a moderate Calvinist?

Thx,

FA

 

[russell55]

I thought that both supra and sub positions were calvinist postions only.

In my opinion, supralapsarianism, sub/infralapsarianism (I think they are the same thing) and amyraldiansim are all calvinistic ordering of the decrees, because they all have election that is not based in God's forsight of faith in human beings. The particularization of salvation is based in God's decision alone.

And if that is so, then what would the arminian (Thiesson) system be called?

It's called the arminianism system.

 

[russell55]

I do not see where scipture itself specifically delineates. We're not talking the ordo salutis exactly.

You are right. Scripture doesn't delineate it in the sense that it gives us a list of the order of the decrees. And the order of the decrees are not the same thing as the ordo salutis.

Scripture doesn't give us a specific order of salvation, either. We derive it logically from the statements of scripture.

Same thing with the order of decrees. How you answer certain questions (and hopefully you are answering them from scripture) about how we are saved translates back into an order of decrees, whether we actually even think about it or not. For instance, was the atonement particular or not? Was election based in foresight? Did God elect to save people out of already condemned sinners? Your answer to all those questions translates back into a logical order of decrees.

 

[J.D.]

"It's called the arminianism system." Tongue-and-cheek, I presume. (laughing) But seriously, don't arminians have some particular systemitized view of the "lapse" and how it relates to the decrees? What would it be called? Finish the sentence:

I am an arminian/biblicist, so I am a _____lapsarian (one word).

 

[russell55]

I'm going to have to abandon this conversation, at least for a bit.

Anyone who is interested in this subject, though, might find this chart by B.B. Warfield It's considered by many to be the most accurate one available.

I'm also doing a whole series of articles on the subject at World Magazine's Theological Weblog, and I'm off to work on the article on infralapsarianism right now. Here's the last article, and you'll find all the previous ones linked there.