Sunday, September 12, 2010

The Different Branches of Calvinism

What kind of Calvinist are you? Amyraldian, Infralapsarian, or Supralapsarian? Pastor Jason Robertson provides the following chart as a reference:

"Low" Calvinism
"Moderate" Calvinism
"High" Calvinism
Decree to Create ManDecree to Create ManDecree Election and Reprobation
Decree to Allow FallDecree to Allow FallDecree to Allow Fall
Decree Atonement for all menDecree Election and ReprobationDecree Atonement for Elect
Decree Election and ReprobationDecree Atonement for ElectDecree to Create Man

(By the way, I fall into the Infralapsarian camp.)

Read more about the different theories here.


Anonymous said...

I'm definitely an infralapsarian, I believe it is more centered on Christ than supralapsarianism, which seems to be all about the elect. But that's just my two cents...

Bobby Grow said...

He forgot to mention the Evangelical Calvinist, we don't really fit into his categories; and yet we are certainly part of the "Calvinist" tradition --- the branch that developed in Scotland concurrent with the development of Westminster and other instantiations (like "The Spiritual Brethren," in England).

Phil said...

err hmm. The distinction is the logical order. To be fair to Supras: if God wanted glory (first) He needs a plan to bring it about. Therefore since the drive came before the plan which came before men, God had ordained first salvation or damnation before He created.
I'm with Dabney, God is beyond time, so don't bother.

Rachel R. said...

I think I'm not understanding how the chart works. What is the distinction being shown between the second and third "options"?

Oh, wait. Are they supposed to be chronological from top-to-bottom? Wow. I like to think of myself as intellectual, but this is making my head hurt. I don't think any of it is chronological, really, as God is outside of time and only we are in it. But I would guess I fit somewhere between intralapsarian and supralapsarian (at least as defined by this chart). If the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (which would, necessarily, be prior to the creation of man), then logically all atonement-related decrees must fall before creation. But then, so did the decree TO create, which is where the whole "time thing" throws me into a tailspin! lol

Related Posts with Thumbnails