What do you think

[Antman_05]

Would you say this shows a fair view point of the different views

Arminianism

1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Provide salvation for all
4. Call all to salvation
5. Elect those who believe

Supralapsarianism

1. Elect some, reprobate rest
2. Create
3. Permit Fall
4. Provide salvation for elect
5. Call elect to salvation

Infralapsarianism

1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Elect some, pass over the rest
4. Provide salvation for elect
5. Call elect to salvation

Amyraldianism

1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Provide salvation sufficient for all
4. Elect some, pass over rest
5. Call elect to salvation

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/salvatio.htm

 

[5solas]

thanks for that link.... I will have to study what's written there..

There is one more position:
(all quoted)

Robert Reymond, himself a supralapsarian, proposes the following refinement of the supralapsarian view: (See Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 489).

Reymond's Modified Supralapsarianism​

1. Elect some sinful men, reprobate rest​
2. Apply redemptive benefits to the elect​
3. Provide salvation for elect​
4. Permit Fall​
5. Create​

Notice that in addition to reording the decrees, Reymond's view deliberately stresses that in the decree of election and reprobation, God is contemplating men as sinners. Reymond writes, "In this scheme, unlike the former [the classic supra- order], God is represented as discriminating among men viewed as sinners and not among men viewed simply as men." Reymond's refinement avoids the criticism most commonly leveled against supralapsarianism, that the supralapsarian has God damning men to perdition before He even contemplates them as sinners. But Reymond's view also leaves unanswered the question of how and why God would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the human race would fall. (Some might even argue that Reymond's refinements result in a position that, as far as the key distinction is concerned, is implicitly infralapsarian.)

end quote

now, what about that?​

 

[Jon_]

I think one of the continuing problems with the supra/infra debate is that we are finite and God is infinite. It is actually illogical and irrelevant to argue supra/infra because God is not limited to thinking sequentially as we are. We talk of the "logical order" of the decrees, but it is actually illogical because to speak of them chronologically is to immediately invalidate their application to God. God does not exist within the confines of "time." To say that "God decreed this first," or "God decreed that first," is to limit God to chronological, sequential reasoning, such as man is limited. By the very nature of God's omniscience, omnipotence, and sovereignty, it is irrational to consider any of the acts of his will as conditional in any way. So to argue that A must first happen before B is to say that God must first do this before he can do that. God could do that at any time if he so pleased.

That being said, I have adopted the supra label because of a few of its implications, viz. active election and active reprobation, and the implicit unconditional nature of election. However, I take no stand on the "logical order" of the decrees because there is no "logical" order to them. In fact, it is erroneous to even speak of God's decree as plural, as the whole of creation, election, redemption, and glorification is complete and consistent, therefore comprising only a single decree. And, of course, it is irrational to inquire of the logical order of God's decree (singular).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[StAnselm]

Aargh! This only works if your list refers to the order of the decrees. But I don't think you can really compare Arminianism to Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism in this regard.

Remember, both Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism are branches of Calvinism - both believe that we are elected before the foundation of the world...

 

[Rick Otto]

another case of linear beings trying to impose order on a omnipresent God.
We reflexively think of omnipresence in geographical terms, not considering His omnipresence in time.