Video of the Supra Position

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Video of the Supra Position”

  1. markmcculley Says:

    Ephesians 3:9-11 –to make all (even gentiles) see what is the fellowship/union of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places would be known by the called out elect the manifold wisdom of God According to the permanent purpose which He decreed in Christ Jesus our Lord

    Ephesians 2:4-5 –But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ…

    We often hear the phrase “election is not salvation” so that “election is UNTO salvation”. Or that “election is not the gospel” but that election is what causes people to believe the gospel. In this essay I want to criticize these often-stated contrasts. Of course the word “salvation” can be used in different senses.. But if the denial that “election is not salvation” is saying that the righteousness Jesus earned for the elect is not “salvation” until after the elect believe, then the common denial is a denial of the gospel and of the efficacy of Christ’s righteousness in salvation.

    If the righteousness Christ earned is not for the elect until the elect believe, it makes no difference if you say that the righteousness was earned only for the elect or also for others besides the elect.: In any case, it is not the righteousness which is the cause of believing. The effect of this is that Christ’s work of obedience is not the ONLY cause of salvation, so that the work of the Spirit in the sinner causing the sinner to believe becomes not a result but a condition of Christ’s work.

    This false gospel will end up not glorying in the cross but putting the Spirit’s work in the sinner in the determinative place. And this false gospel, in which Christ‘s work is not the cause, will also say that “election is not the gospel” but only that which makes sinners believe the gospel.

    The texts I have quoted from Ephesians will not support leaving election out of the gospel and salvation. For us to think about these verses, let us first think about time. Another common denial is that God knows about or cares time. Instead of saying that God is both outside time and inside time, the typical procedure is to deny that God is concerned with order and sequence and time.

    For example, it is taught by some that people are regenerate a long time before they know or believe the gospel. Many Calvinists teach that the sheep are no longer under God’s wrath even while these sheep now continue in ignorance of the gospel. In other words, they teach that wrath is removed at regeneration and that continued unbelief of the gospel is not a manifestation of God’s wrath.

    Other Calvinists deny God’s concern with time in order to teach that God’s wrath is never ever on the elect. When I point out that this logic would deny the reality of the Trinitarian wrath of God satisfied by the God-man, the response is that we do not understand God’s relationship to time.

    This kind of thinking is common: “we cannot understand God’s relationship to time, therefore your understanding of God’s relationship to time is incorrect, and our understanding of God’s relationship to time is correct.” And this affirmation is founded on another: “we cannot understand God’s relationship to sin, therefore reprobation is conditioned on sin, instead of sin being a result of reprobation.” I want to discuss this last statement in some detail, but I will give you a more correct third view right now.

    It is wrong to say that reprobation is conditioned on sin: both those elected and those reprobated are sinners–if sin were the cause/condition of reprobation, then all sinners would be reprobated. The reason for reprobation is like the reason for election. God’s justice is no less sovereign than God’s grace.

    If we were only thinking about God’s sovereign justice, then there would be no reason for either election or reprobation. But the texts in Ephesians remind us that there is more to know about God than His sovereign justice: His glory is also revealed in His sovereign love and in His sovereign wrath. To know His name is to know Him as the one who has mercy on some and who hardens others.

    I deny that reprobation is conditioned on sin. But this does not mean that I think that sin is conditioned on reprobation, so that God only makes sinners (ordains and predestines them to sin) in order to reprobate them. As a more consistent supralapsarian, I teach not only that sin is included in God’s purpose (so that God is not REACTING to sin, not even logically) but also that God’s very first concern is to manifest His glory in discriminating between sinner and sinner, so that election in Christ from the beginning is an election of sinners and so that reprobation outside Christ from the beginning is a reprobation of sinners.

    God does not wait for sinners to sin, and then decide to pass some of them by. In the very purpose to elect and to reprobate for His glory, God determines to elect some sinners and reprobate some sinners.

    BOTH election and reprobation from the outset have God as their subject and sinners as their objects. God’s choice is the first thing. Sin is not the first thing, and then God reacts. Neither is creation the first thing, and then God reacts. Sin is necessary if God is to choose between sinners. Only because of God’s choice to choose between sinners, does God ordain sin.

  2. Anonymous Says:

    Bravo!

  3. Mark W. Lewis Says:

    Often times I’ve thought that the infra postion indirectly taught that God’s choice of elect and reprobate were conditioned by the fall. God chose some for life because we are were fallen and needed to be rescued. God chose some for death because we were corrupt and have sinned.
    But then in your video you said that neither view conditions election or reprobation on the actions of man. I think thats plausible, but how does that look when we are talking about the decrees of God? Logically only supralapsianism fits because only this view supports the idea of an unconditional election. To say that God decreed the elect after the fall but still hold to an unconditional election seems to me to be illogical. Your thoughts.
    Mark

    • Mark Lewis, I absolutely agree. It’s not a plan B or God trying to play catch up. From the pulpit I sometimes say It’s not like God is chasing His tail. Thanks for your participation.

    • This is certainly my initial stop by and I really like what I’m seeing. Your weblog is so much fun to look over, quite compelling as well as informative. I’ll undoubtedly recommend it to my friends. Neeetrhvless, I did have some problem with the commenting. It kept giving me an problem whenever I clicked on publish comment. I hope, that can be fixed. Many thanks. .

  4. Reading Mark McCulley’s treatise, and him claiming to be a “more consistant” supralapsarian, I can’t help wondering what he makes of that famous scripture, Romans 9:11 and 13, which CLEARLY states:

    11 “(For the children being not yet born, NEITHER HAVING DONE ANY GOOD OR EVIL, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

    13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

    In fact, ALL of Romans 9, if read and understood in its proper context, is a treatise against infralapsarianism, and the ambiguous nature of this man’s ramblings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: