Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Yeshua1, Apr 9, 2015.
If you see yourself as a calvinist?
Though there isn't a ton of evidence of a logical order of God's decrees, I would have to say infralapsarianism is the mainstream Calvinist and biblical order of decrees. Amyraldianism is contradicts the the particularity of Christ's saving work and supralapsarianism (the view held by hyper-Calvinists) can turn into evidence of God being the author of sin.
I agree with most of the above, with the exception of "biblical order of decrees."
All hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarian, but all supralapsarians are not hyper-Calvinists.
I say it’s biblical in the sense that the order of decrees in infralapsarianism reflects the order of events found in the Bible. First, God created man. Second, He permitted the Fall. Then God decided to save sinners by sending Jesus. Finally, Jesus actually died to provide salvation.
Supralapsarianism can come off as God setting up mankind for the Fall for no other reason than to save those He decreed to in the beginning of His decrees.
I sorta lean towars the supra-side of election, but I don't see it that God ordained/decreed the fall of the non-elect, but He did decree the election of His sheep...
Call it a tulip, rose, or lily; man is totally depraved by nature including his theology. God took care of man before the foundation of the world. Salvation is of the Lord. Jesus paid it all.
Eph. 2: 8-10
How about Grace-ism?
Pink got it right. Not many seem to understand the real relationship between depravity and Grace.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro Willis - How does God ordain/decree the election of one group without also ordaining/decreeing the downfall of the non-elect group? Doesn't the first condition naturally set up the logical existence of the other?
When Adam sinned, everyone fell in Adam. It was Adam's fault, not God. God chose us, the church to give to Jesus to atone for our sins. In Adam we fell, in Christ we raise. I have been pondering the two, supra- & infra-, not entirely in either camp, though I lean supra-. Why?
That doesn't really answer the question, though. I'm not trying to uncover the reason for the fall. That Adam made the decision to sin is clear to everyone except the hyper-Calvinist, who reasons that God authored that sin in order to redeem His Elect.
No, I'm trying to figure this one out: In Calvinism, God chooses out His Elect before the foundation of the World. He knew that Adam would sin, yet He still created Adam with a free will that allowed him to sin. Before any of this, though, God chose a specific number of individuals to be His Elect. The obvious conclusion of this choosing is that God also chose a group not to be His Elect.
Think of it like this: If there are ten apples on a table, and I pick out four for myself, then I obviously decided that those four were more worthy, and the remaining six were not good enough for my selection. I chose a group to take with me, and a group to leave on the table. That's Election, in the Calvinist sense, as I see it.
If a person goes to an orphanage that has 1000 possible adoptable orphans...and they choose two....are you glad they were able to chose two, or do you fault them and seek to find reasons why they did not select the other 998?
Praise God for His glorious grace.
God did not elect everyone. Are you complaining about that? He is God, the Lord of all. He is the perfect right to choose those whom He may.
He mercies whom He wills and hardens whom He wills.
But your example is not at all corresponding to the biblical model. There is not among those He has chosen anything meritorious. The Bible does not say some are more worthy than others. That is not at all His basis for choosing His own.
Well, your point of view is not at all how Calvinists see it, because it does not square with Scripture.
I happen to keep company with a quite a few supralapsarians who are not hyper-Calvinists.
A very poor analogy. God is not limited to just two. The person is.
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.
That's right. Here is a good example of hypercalvinism:
Amen and amen! I do praise God for His glorious grace.
So we are presented with a God who has mercy on some and no mercy on others, who gives some the ability to repent, but does not give that ability to others, yet this same God is quoted in the scripture stating that He desires ALL MEN everywhere to repent. We're left with a God lamenting Jerusalem not being willing to turn to Him, when it was that very same God preventing Jerusalem from turning to Him.
I agree. My example was a heat-of-the-moment attempt. I admit that it was not the best attempt at an analogy.
Again, NONE of us will even call upon His name in order to get saved unless God Himself provides to us the needed faith and grace to do such though!
And you have the really big problem if you hold to God intended the death of Jesus to save all sinners, as either he cannot save all sinners, or he has chosen not to do such!
It was not meant to be a direct correlation. ....the question is valid......do you fault the couple for their positive choice.....
by extension. ....do you fault God for His positive choice....if all are not chosen
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....