Theological Word of the Day: Supralapsarianism
If you have not subscribed to the Theological Word of the Day, what are you waiting for? It is a new ministry blog of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries in partnership with Christians in Context. You can subscribe to the email list or RSS feeder.
Here is today’s word:
Supralapsarianism
Lat. “before the fall”
also antelapsarianism
A system of belief among certain Calvinists believing in a theoretical plan of God that occurred before creation concerning his decree to save mankind. In the supra scheme, God first decreed who the elect and reprobate (non-elect) were, second he created both the elect and reprobate, third he decreed the fall as a means of damnation for the non-elect, and forth he decreed the atonement as a means of salvation for the elect. In this order one can surmise that the damnation of the reprobate primarily came as a result of God’s reprobating (non-electing), and only secondarily through the fall. This is to be distinguished from other more moderate forms of Calvinism such as infralapsarianism and sublapsarianism. Supralapsarianism is held by most proponents of double predestination.
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Theological Word of the Day: Supralapsarianism
- Calvinists often make the worst Calvinists
- Where I Stand
- An Encouragement for Christians to Question their Faith
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura - Part Eight b - What about all the divisions?
Luke on 06 May 2008 at 12:50 am #
Sounds pretty evil and distorted to me!
bethyada on 06 May 2008 at 4:20 am #
Here’s an interesting analogy for sublapsarianism and supralapsarianism, as well as non-Calvinist positions using the idea of falling out of a boat and God getting us back in.
Ellen on 06 May 2008 at 6:25 am #
I think you should have the “word of the day” made into one of those little sidebar programs so that we can install it right on our blogs and have it automatically change every day…
britphil on 06 May 2008 at 8:28 am #
“Sounds pretty evil and distorted to me!”
Luke..Amen to that!! I was so relieved Michael to hear that you are a infralapsarian . Who on earth believes this nonsense!!?? Obviously quite a number, given that they have a label to describe them…after all…who doesn’t have a label these days??
I personally believe that the Godhead probably had much better, productive and far more worthwhile things to do with Their time, like enjoying spending time together in divine community!
Berny on 06 May 2008 at 3:05 pm #
“Luke..Amen to that!! I was so relieved Michael to hear that you are a infralapsarian . Who on earth believes this nonsense!!?? Obviously quite a number, given that they have a label to describe them…after all…who doesn’t have a label these days??
I personally believe that the Godhead probably had much better, productive and far more worthwhile things to do with Their time, like enjoying spending time together in divine community!”
Well Gosh! That’s wonderful that you personally feel that way!
I wasn’t sure I was going to be able to get any sleep tonight knowing that I was unsure of where you stood on this topic.
I’ve got a label that applies to you: theological dilettante. You’re out of your depth here.
jeff doolittle on 07 May 2008 at 12:01 am #
Robert Reymond is a contemporary author who holds to a modified form of supralapsarianism. His systematic theology is worth the read, even if you don’t agree with him. He believes the main problem people have with supralapsarianism is the idea that God would choose people with no regard to the sinfulness of mankind. His system aims to remedy this problem. He makes some interesting arguments where he attempts to demonstrate that infralapsarianism doesn’t really solve any of the issues raised by Arminians and other non-Calvinists.
I’m not convinced by Reymond, but he provides some worthwhile food for thought.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=91317
Luke on 07 May 2008 at 2:06 am #
Berny,
I’ve got a label that applies to you: theologically arrogant. You’re above your maturity level here.
britphil on 07 May 2008 at 3:13 am #
Luke
Thank you my good friend….but don’t worry I shall be replying to our Berny, our new found self-proclaimed theological superstar, in due course!
A Lover of Truth on 07 May 2008 at 11:06 am #
This arbitrary god of John Calvin and Augistine is certainly in contrast to the Benevolent God of the Bible:
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times;
I appeal to you by the Scriptures to reject the God of Calvin/Augustine and accept the God of Heaven.
britphil on 07 May 2008 at 12:10 pm #
“I appeal to you by the Scriptures to reject the God of Calvin/Augustine and accept the God of Heaven.
Please note that it was ‘a lover of truth’ who made the above statement and not me!! I think he/she has a fair point though!
Why do I fear coming to this site tomorrow and reading a barrage/ping-pong of various biblical texts!
Berny on 07 May 2008 at 10:36 pm #
A Lover of Truth,
Are you under the impression that these texts have never been dealt with by Calvinists?
A Lover of Truth on 08 May 2008 at 12:36 pm #
Except one involve himself in eisegesis, he cannot consistently uphold Calvinist error, either by those passages or any other in the whole of Scripture.
The Jews can “deal” with Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 while still rejecting Christ as well as “explain away” Isaiah 53, are you saying that because they can “deal” with those passages that they have a right by God to hold to their error (and not be condemned for it)?