Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by DaChaser1, Feb 24, 2012.
just getting a gauge on that here on BB!
Infra... No apologies.
Why do you prefer infra over supra? I know it represents your position in a better way, but why infra over supra?
Wonder which postion John Calvin would claim?
Are we dealing strictly with the decree to save some and the decree to allow the fall issues?
If we are, then I would say I am a "nunma" as in it is none of my business per Romans 9 to question God on this. The Bible does not say, so God deemed it unnecessary for me to know. The Bible does say He chose some before the foundation of the world to be His. Also before the foundation of the world He determined the plan to accomplish the redemption of His people, the elect. The order in which He made those decisions, and their associated decrees obviously occurred before the actual creation event. How long before an in which order were those decisions made, I don't know.
Best answer so far in my opinion, and think it would apply well to all the rest of thsese discussions on the nature of God.
Whether it be the how, why, when, where, or whatfor.
I gues that makes me a "nunma" too.:thumbs:
LOL Come on and join the party ya'll. Life is so much easier when you can be confident and rest in God's sovereignty.
Personally dont like labels.
Yes you do. You prefer _____ Beer over _____ Beer.
:laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup:
Does that mean you want a plain cup for your beverage of choice as opposed to being used as a marketing tool simply by drinking out of the factory can/bottle/whatever? :wavey:
I am not a fan of labels either. However I have come to learn that at times they are helpful in understanding where someone is coming from when discussing an issue. For example, when needing to direct someone to the proper restroom, or ordering food in a foreign restaurant where the change of a single letter can mean the difference between eating a cow or eating a dog. Or, when discussing the person and work of Christ with the young JW's that came to your door.
That would be "cold" over "warm" or "free" over "not free". :thumbs:
I am also an infra-.
I would say that the supra- position is logically backwards. Salvation is logically linked to the fall. It is logically made a response to the fall. The supra- position makes the fall a logical result of the decree to save. To me this is weird and puts the "decree" of saving a people logically apart from what makes them need the salvation in the first place.
Of course, the supra- would say that the logicality of God's decrees are supposed to be the reverse of what actually unfolds.
isn't the issue though is wether God dtermined to have fall happen directly, caused it to happen, as opposssed to allowing it to happen, but having predestined response to it via the Cross of christ?
I believe it is both:
1. decreed to permit the fall
2. decreed to save a people resulting from 1.
1. decreed to save a people
2. decreed the fall to make 1. necessary
Although both would believe that the fall was inevitable, the supra position says that God caused the fall to happen because He wanted to save a certain people. It is virtually the same as double predestination. The infra position makes the salvation of the elect logically the result of the fall; therefore, single predestination. The supra position almost seems to emphasize reprobation over election.
I think God's purpose was more than to just save people. I think it also has to do with ridding the universe of evil which is inevitable among anyone with a free will. Don't ask how me how it all works out. I'm still thinking on it. :laugh:
OK, I do prefer my beer in a glass (it tastes better when it breathes...or so I believe) & if any of the brethren asks, I will tell them my testimony so I follow Jesus which should make me a Christian... why should you care what bible I read & how I interpret it? I think anyone on this board knows my theological stance by now & we don't have to micromanage my faith. Sorry if that appears unkind, but thats my strongly held position.
Only problem with your first point is that Calvinists leave out the "to permit" part.