Supralapsarian Help Needed

[Sober_Baptist]

Does anyone know of a concise page of comebacks to objections I can use when discussing this subject with others?

I have read a number of "searched" articles, but probably not being as deep in the subject as many of you, I was hoping for maybe a condensed version Q&A.

For example, Romans 9:21, the "same lump" seems to be a favorite of many.

Thank you in advance, and I hope you don't mind helping one without enough time to study out these things. I of course agree with the articles read on the subject, but am a bit lacking on apologetics I guess.

Also, many times with me these topics are discussed in a brief period of time, over lunch or just small talk at my business, so a spiritual "cheat sheet" would be a great help.

[Brandan Kraft]

Romans 9's "same lump" proves supralpsarianism for me. The debate is whether or not the "same lump" is a fallen mass of humanity (infralapsarianism) or an unfallen mass of humanity (supralapsarianism). Here's Gill on the topic:

http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?vi...&createchaps=1

of the same lump, to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour. The apostle seems to design hereby, to point out to us the object of predestination to be man, as yet not made, but as lying in the mere mass of creatureship, signified by the unformed clay, before put into any shape; and is an allusion to the first creation of man, out of the clay, or dust of the earth, Ge 2:7; for such a consideration of man best agrees with the clay, lump, or mass, not yet formed, than as already made, and much less as fallen and corrupted: for if men, in predestination, were considered in the corrupt mass, or as fallen creatures, they could not be so well said to be made out of it, both to honour and dishonour; but rather since they were all dishonourable, that some were left in that dishonour, and others removed from it unto honour: besides, if this is not the case, God must create man without an end, which is contrary to the principle of reason and wisdom; the end is the cause, for which a thing is what it is; and it is a known rule, that what is first in intention, is last in execution, and "vice versa": the end is first fixed, and then the means; for God to create man, and then to fix the end of his creation, is to do what no wise potter would do, first make his pots, and then think of the end of making them, and the use they are to be put unto. To make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour, is for God to appoint creatures, which are to be made out of the same mass and lump, for his own glory; which end, his own glory, he determines to bring about by different means, as these following: with respect to the vessels of honour, whom he appoints for his glory, he determines to create them; to suffer them to fall into sin, whereby they become polluted and guilty; to raise and recover them, by the obedience, sufferings, and death of his Son; to regenerate, renew, and sanctify them, by his Spirit and grace, and to bring them to eternal happiness; and hereby compass the aforesaid end, his own glory, the glorifying of his grace and mercy, in a way consistent with justice and holiness: with respect to the vessels of dishonour, whom he also appoints for the glorifying of himself, he determines to create them out of the same lump; to suffer them to fall into sin; to leave them in their sins, in the pollution and guilt of them, and to condemn them for them; and hereby gain his ultimate end, his own glory, glorifying the perfections of his power, justice, and holiness, without the least blemish to his goodness and mercy: now if a potter has power, for his own advantage and secular interest, to make out of the same clay what vessels he pleases; much more has God a power, out of the same mass and lump of creatureship, to appoint creatures he determines to make to his own glory; which he brings about by different methods, consistent with the perfections of his nature.

[Tobias Crisp]

Does anyone know of a concise page of comebacks to objections I can use when discussing this subject with others?

I have read a number of "searched" articles, but probably not being as deep in the subject as many of you, I was hoping for maybe a condensed version Q&A.

For example, Romans 9:21, the "same lump" seems to be a favorite of many.

Thank you in advance, and I hope you don't mind helping one without enough time to study out these things. I of course agree with the articles read on the subject, but am a bit lacking on apologetics I guess.

Also, many times with me these topics are discussed in a brief period of time, over lunch or just small talk at my business, so a spiritual "cheat sheet" would be a great help.

Your question doesn't specifically indicate if you are wanting a "cheat sheet" that defends supralapsarians and answers the infra view or the other way around. You will find that many on this forum including most of the moderators are supralapsarian. I have several good articles on my website dealing with supralapsarianism. I would highly recommend reading them. Here are links to these articles:

• The Decrees of God by Hugh Binning
• The Fall of Man was Both Necessary and Wonderful by Theodore Beza
• The Causes of Salvation and Damnation by William Perkins
• Supralapsarianism by Ward Fenley
  

[Sober_Baptist]

Thank you for the info, guys.

I was trying to request info defending the supra/answers the infra. Sorry for the confusion. After posting I realized it was a bit confusing.

Thanks, Paul

[Spurgeonesque]

Sober Baptist-

I would recommend Louis Berkhof's treatment of this in his "Systematic Theology".

[Brandan Kraft]

Sober Baptist-

I would recommend Louis Berkhof's treatment of this in his "Systematic Theology".

Berkhof is an infralapsarian. SB is looking for stuff that supports the supralapsarian view. I recommend Gordon Clark, Herman Hoeksema, John Robbins, Robert Reymond, and of course 5solas.org!

Brandan

[ray kikkert]

Thank you for the info, guys.

I was trying to request info defending the supra/answers the infra. Sorry for the confusion. After posting I realized it was a bit confusing.

Thanks, Paul

Hello Paul

Herman Hoeksema stated" We must emphasize not so much what is first or last in the decree of God, but rather place ourselves before the questions: What in those decrees is conceived as purpose and what as means? What is the main object in those decrees, and what is subordinate and subservient to that main object?
In this way we escape the danger of leaving the impression that there is a temporal order in the decrees of God."
Reformed Dogmatics-Vol.1-page 236-Herman Hoeksema

Those two questions are answered consistently and without reservation in the supralapsarian definition regarding what is revealed in Scripture regarding God's eternal counsel.

[Spurgeonesque]

Berkhof is an infralapsarian. SB is looking for stuff that supports the supralapsarian view. I recommend Gordon Clark, Herman Hoeksema, John Robbins, Robert Reymond, and of course 5solas.org!

Brandan

Darth Gill-

It is a debate whether Berkhof was infra or supra. Both sides seem to claim him. I mentioned his work specifically because he treats the overall issues well without asserting what he holds to. In that case it is a fair presentation for both sides.

[ray kikkert]

Darth Gill-

It is a debate whether Berkhof was infra or supra. Both sides seem to claim him. I mentioned his work specifically because he treats the overall issues well without asserting what he holds to. In that case it is a fair presentation for both sides.

One "stating" yet without "asserting" is one who "fence sits"

[baptistyancey]

The end all be all for overcoming objections to supralapsarianism is John Gill"s "The Cause of God and Truth" It is a small book and very to the point.

[Spurgeonesque]

I would also recommend B.B. Warfield's "The Plan of Salvation". It contains a helpful chart of all the views so you can compare them.