Is it more accurate Biblically to hold to a supralapsarian or infralapsarian view of God's plan of salvation?

Answer 1

"i dont understand a word you are saying boy" napolean dynomite

Answer 2

Well, logically, 'free will'... OF NECESSITY... cannot exist concomitant with an 'omniscient' diety. Therefore, IF god exists AND god is omniscient, THEN, OF NECESSITY, Free will is an illusion, and everything is predetermined.

That being the case, then from the standpoint of human beings, the argument between the supralapsarian and infralapsarian positions become nothing more that a Calvinist quibble... an exercise in mental masturbation, intended to 'logically' deduce what 'was' in the 'mind of god' (presuming that god even HAS a mind) before and at the time of creation... TEMPORALLY, in his magical and unknowable thought sequences... all the while maintaining that god exists APART from time. A classic circle jerk... and to no purpose; mankind is equally screwed in either case, doomed to bumble through a predestined life, arriving at a predestined fate, and operating all the while under the ILLUSION that they've got some decision-making power (free-will) in the process.

The only thing to be determined here is degree of god's culpability as a psychopathic criminal mastermind... whether all the evils of existence, of the past, the present and the (predetermined) future are a result of his malicious intent, or his callous disregard for the well-being of his creations.

You know, all this brings something to mind. Christians keep going on and on about how atheists have no morals, and are feared because Christians cannot fathom what might hold them back from whatever unethical or criminal behavior they might want to indulge in. What a hoot. What they fail to understand is that if they indeed have an omniscient god, then 'free will' is an impossibility... the best they can achieve is the ILLUSION that they have free will. Anything they think, or do, or decide is already known by god... in fact it has already been SEEN by god, since he operates outside of time. Nothing that god has seen can be changed or altered in any way... so WHATEVER they DO, from god's perspective, has ALREADY been DONE, since before the moment of creation. So, essentially, they are going through life with no more self-control than a wind-up toy.

Oops... it seems that I neglected to answer your question: "Is it more accurate Biblically to hold to a supralapsarian or infralapsarian view of God's plan of salvation?" Well... I guess the answer is that the question is totally irrelevant, from the perspective of human beings, whether they be laymen or theologians. Moreso, since there is no compelling reason to think that that wascally wabbit, god, even exists, anyway.

Answer 3

I would say that neither is really more accurate because God is not the author of sin. The problem with alot of theology is that it can limit the choice it represents while creating new definitions and descriptions that seem to wax eloquent. It is also most noteworthy that alot of those views are really Johnny-come-lately ones since they often have arisen since the reformation in the overall history of the church. The newer terminology is often even newer and a revision of the previous ideas. If people keep making up their own terms for this view or that it will just muddy the waters so to speak. The older I grow in Christ the more I love the scripture,"but I fear lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the SIMPLICITY that is in Christ"-2Cor 11:3. If you want to be a seminar professor where you can debate which theological term or which nuance of a certain doctrine is lacking validity, knock yourself out but you really won't be that useful in the real world. Theological study has its place but not when it goes off the beaten path which is a narrow one.

Answer 4

Calvinism makes me cranky this early in the morning ...

I hold a view that's somewhat in the middle, so my answer is "neither." Nothing happens outside God's permissive or active Will; therefore, one can correctly suppose the Fall was God's Will. However, it is equally correct to say that God foreknew the Fall was going to happen even before He created the earth.

Answer 5

Tricky question - but I'd go with infralapsarian. This puts more credence in man having free will, which seems more biblical considering all the options man is given over time there, all the choices he makes, and the results from those.

Answer 6

I believe in the election of grace as a remedy for an existing evil, so I guess I hold an infralapsarian view.

Answer 7

Huh? Are you from the outer most realms of planet Apsarian? It would be more accurate to use language that is common to everyday use and doesn't require a trip over to dictionary.com in order to answer your question. Your verbosity is noted. ~J~ <><

Answer 8

I heard it explained this way once and it makes sense to me:

A man walks up to an open doorway. Above the doorway is a sign that reads: "Whosoever will, may come."

After he passed through the doorway, he sees THIS sign in the room: "God's elect."

Answer 9

That depends on your point of view. There are seemingly sensible arguments on both sides, assuming that you believe in the existence of God.

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Supralapsarian)
Jump to: navigation, search
Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism are two opposing views held by differing Calvinists.

Supralasarianism is also known as antelapsarianism. Sublapsarianism is a minor variant of infralapsarianism.

Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Theology
3 See also
4 External links



[edit]
History
Many prominent early Calvinists were supralapsarian, such as (some argue) John Calvin, John Knox, Theodore Beza, Huldreich Zwingli, Zanchius, Gomarus, Twisse, and Perkins. Subsequent Calvinism was frequently infralapsarian, although supralapsarianism has revived recently (Geerhardus Vos and Gordon Clark).

Historically, infralapsarianism won out at the Synod of Dordt in 1618. In the Canons of Dordt, First Point of Doctrine, Article 7, it states:

Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he [God] chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. (Translation from Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions, CRC Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 1988, page 124)
[edit]
Theology
The terms are often used in a general sense, with supralapsarianism meaning that God planned the fall and infralapsarianism that God merely foresaw, and hence permitted or merely reacted to, the fall. In this sense all Calvinists are supralapsarians, believing that God planned the fall. Nevertheless, inside scholastic Calvinism, the terms came to mean a different thing. While all held that God planned the fall prior to creation, disputes arose as to the logical relation within this plan between the decision to save individuals and the decision to allow the fall. Supralapsarians believe that in the logical order of the divine decrees, individual election and reprobation occur logically prior to the fall, infralapsarians believe they occur logically subsequent.

Both positions are double predestinarian technically, in that God has settled the eternal destiny of both the elect and the reprobate. However, "double predestination" today is usually an ambiguous pejorative term used to describe those who believe that God actively works equally to keep the elect in heaven and the reprobate out of heaven (actually known as "equal ultimacy"). Equal ultimacy was not held by Calvin and is not held by most in the Reformed Tradition. It came into popularity with hyper-Calvinism.

The Latin root supra means over, above, or before. The root infra means below, under, or after. Supralapsarianism is the position that the fall occurred (among other reasons) to facilitate God's purpose of election and reprobation of individuals, while infralapsarianism holds that, while the fall was planned, it was not planned in reference to who would be saved. Thus supralapsarians (in the Calvinist sense used here) believe that God chose which individuals to save before he decided to allow the race to fall, the fall serving as the means of realisation of the prior decision to send some individuals to hell and others to heaven, providing the grounds of condemnation in the reprobate and the need for redemption in the elect. In contrast, the infralapsarian holds that God planned the race to fall logically prior to the decision as to which individuals to save or damn out of a fallen race. As such, it is argued that to be saved, one must be subject to something from which one need be saved, and so the fall is logically prior to the decree of election.

Historically, part of the appeal of the infralapsarian position is that it can, at least in part, be viewed as a possible theodicy for the logical consequence of predestination that God is the author of sin.

Supralapsarians are often termed hypercalvinists, although this is a misnomer. All hypercalvinists are indeed supralapsarian, but not all supralapsarians are hypercalvinists.

Answer 10

A child's view is normally best.

Answer 11

You might want to ask for scriptural references to back up their answer.


Do something nice for a stranger today. And tell them to pass it forward.
Good life to you.