Superlapsarianism vs Infralapsarianism

[Treasure]

Do you all see the smoke coming out of my head from my brain being fried Maybe I should go back to the felt board from my VBS years.

[hopper]

Edited April 17, 2008 by hopper

[BurnForChrist]

Thanks everyone for your replies, votes and views. Also understand this is a theological discussion/poll not a salvation/what matters most discussion. I understand that none of this contributes to salvation but understand that this is to attempt to understand the logical order of GODs eternal decrees, so there is nothing wrong with trying to go deep into theological topics.

Also let me restate again infralapsarianism does NOT teach that GOD decided to "elect some" after the fall. But rather he viewed that as fallen (hints why its after permit fall) creatures when he decided to elect them. So please try not to get that mixed up or think it any different.

Though my Election was for Supra, I'm more of a Hyper-Supra... because I can't see how any of these jibes with Scripture.

For instance, the idea to Elect some in the unFallen state is to ignore the Fall which condemn all. But I can't go with infra because we are loved in eternity past (Eph 1:4) (literally before creation) which removes everything else from consideration. Even so, the others are vain nonsense Amyrauldism defines the depth of God's love in hypothetical numbers rather than substance (if God's love were defined by numbers, it would still be finite). And Arminianism is Arminianism and has been shown to be in gross error for literally centuries.

Personally I am an Infra. As I stated earlier infralapsarianism does not state that we are not loved in eternity past. I completely agree that before creation we are loved and chosen by God but rather the real debate is how did GOD view man in regards to election.

Burn

[MorningGlory]

Thanks everyone for your replies, votes and views. Also understand this is a theological discussion/poll not a salvation/what matters most discussion. I understand that none of this contributes to salvation but understand that this is to attempt to understand the logical order of GODs eternal decrees, so there is nothing wrong with trying to go deep into theological topics.

Also let me restate again infralapsarianism does NOT teach that GOD decided to "elect some" after the fall. But rather he viewed that as fallen (hints why its after permit fall) creatures when he decided to elect them. So please try not to get that mixed up or think it any different.

Though my Election was for Supra, I'm more of a Hyper-Supra... because I can't see how any of these jibes with Scripture.

For instance, the idea to Elect some in the unFallen state is to ignore the Fall which condemn all. But I can't go with infra because we are loved in eternity past (Eph 1:4) (literally before creation) which removes everything else from consideration. Even so, the others are vain nonsense Amyrauldism defines the depth of God's love in hypothetical numbers rather than substance (if God's love were defined by numbers, it would still be finite). And Arminianism is Arminianism and has been shown to be in gross error for literally centuries.

Personally I am an Infra. As I stated earlier infralapsarianism does not state that we are not loved in eternity past. I completely agree that before creation we are loved and chosen by God but rather the real debate is how did GOD view man in regards to election.

Burn

I'm lost here, absolutely lost. Why have I never heard of any of this? I need to get out more.......

[Reuben Hick]

Thanks everyone for your replies, votes and views. Also understand this is a theological discussion/poll not a salvation/what matters most discussion. I understand that none of this contributes to salvation but understand that this is to attempt to understand the logical order of GODs eternal decrees, so there is nothing wrong with trying to go deep into theological topics.

Also let me restate again infralapsarianism does NOT teach that GOD decided to "elect some" after the fall. But rather he viewed that as fallen (hints why its after permit fall) creatures when he decided to elect them. So please try not to get that mixed up or think it any different.

Though my Election was for Supra, I'm more of a Hyper-Supra... because I can't see how any of these jibes with Scripture.

For instance, the idea to Elect some in the unFallen state is to ignore the Fall which condemn all. But I can't go with infra because we are loved in eternity past (Eph 1:4) (literally before creation) which removes everything else from consideration. Even so, the others are vain nonsense Amyrauldism defines the depth of God's love in hypothetical numbers rather than substance (if God's love were defined by numbers, it would still be finite). And Arminianism is Arminianism and has been shown to be in gross error for literally centuries.

Personally I am an Infra. As I stated earlier infralapsarianism does not state that we are not loved in eternity past. I completely agree that before creation we are loved and chosen by God but rather the real debate is how did GOD view man in regards to election.

Burn

I'm lost here, absolutely lost. Why have I never heard of any of this? I need to get out more.......

If history is our guide, the next topic that will come out is a discussion on the means of grace, with particular emphasis on condemning the Zwinglian view of the sacraments...

start studying now...

[ayin jade]

or, with more complicated theological jargon:

I didnt understand you the first time. I aint gonna get it this time.

[sweetycakes]

Thanks everyone for your replies, votes and views. Also understand this is a theological discussion/poll not a salvation/what matters most discussion. I understand that none of this contributes to salvation but understand that this is to attempt to understand the logical order of GODs eternal decrees, so there is nothing wrong with trying to go deep into theological topics.

Also let me restate again infralapsarianism does NOT teach that GOD decided to "elect some" after the fall. But rather he viewed that as fallen (hints why its after permit fall) creatures when he decided to elect them. So please try not to get that mixed up or think it any different.

Though my Election was for Supra, I'm more of a Hyper-Supra... because I can't see how any of these jibes with Scripture.

For instance, the idea to Elect some in the unFallen state is to ignore the Fall which condemn all. But I can't go with infra because we are loved in eternity past (Eph 1:4) (literally before creation) which removes everything else from consideration. Even so, the others are vain nonsense Amyrauldism defines the depth of God's love in hypothetical numbers rather than substance (if God's love were defined by numbers, it would still be finite). And Arminianism is Arminianism and has been shown to be in gross error for literally centuries.

Personally I am an Infra. As I stated earlier infralapsarianism does not state that we are not loved in eternity past. I completely agree that before creation we are loved and chosen by God but rather the real debate is how did GOD view man in regards to election.

Burn

I'm lost here, absolutely lost. Why have I never heard of any of this? I need to get out more.......

You and me both

I'm too old to be learning new things at this time in my life...............off to bury my head in the sand....

[hopper]

Edited April 17, 2008 by hopper

[hopper]

Edited April 17, 2008 by hopper

[Reuben Hick]

I see "Elect those who believe" as trusting in the blood of Jesus.

I'm just curious, what meaning to the word "Elect" is left when it is used in that sentence?

It can't possibly retain its original fundamental meaning "to choose", because there is no choice left in the matter, once the other party makes the "choice", there is allegedly nothing else God can do for He is obligated to to take in each and every one of those who "chose" correctly.

Amen, He is obligated based on the work of Christ.

Interesting. The word oblige means to be indebted or constrained by a physical, legal, social or moral contract to perform a service. So basically God is bound to serve man. I guess that it is also safe to assume you don't believe a word of Eph 1:4 which I had in mind when answering OneLight.

Oh well.