Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism

These big scary theological technical terms (infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism) which are sure to turn Aunt Milly’s hair white (if it isn’t already), in layman’s terms are “before the fall” or “after the fall” and have to do with the “election”, or WHEN God decreed who will be saved. It has to do with whether there is a logical line of reasoning according to God’s foreknowledge of future events concerning who will be saved. The supralapsarian view is devoid of a logical line of reasoning and is not based on God’s own wisdom of future events, and we could say is the doctrine of the unreasonable “God who is a brute” (I have no idea of how He ignores or makes any decrees of future events that are not according to His own wisdom and foreknowledge). It is like God makes it up as he goes along and then forces everyone do what He wants without fail. I am sure supralapsarians will freak out and have a tiff because I am not using words preselected by them to make their hogwash not smell so much like pig water. There are fundamentally huge mistakes in both views, since both contain the satanic accusation against God, but what I want to do in a bit is to highlight a small bit of principled thinking in infralapsarianists, that appears for a moment in this doctrine, but is  never seen again in the rest of their doctrines. Infralapsarianists argue that God’s elective decree has a logical order to it in which those decreed to election are derived from God’s foreknowledge of who would believe after “the fall” and the presentation of the solution of their predicament is offered to them. So really infralapsarians have God knowing who would believe for salvation when they are presented with it, and therefore God decreed beforehand who would believe or be elected to salvation. “Supras” cry foul, and then suggest that the election or decree of election is then subject to the creatures, and therefore the creatures themselves determine if they are elect or not. They further argue that this makes the will of God being determined by and subject to the creatures, and by implication that God’s will is determined by the creature rather than God Himself. But hey, I could make any argument like that and make it “appear conundrumatic”! Did man decide to fall himself? if he did then the decree of man’s fall was determined by him and not God, therefore God’s “decree of the fall” (decree is a very formal and intimidating word isn’t it???) was determined by the wills of man and angels. So did God make man fall, and Lucifer rebell? (This is where theological fabric softener is cried for very badly by the heretics). This is where they say “God permitted the fall because God now suddenly has a PERMISSIVE WILL.” This permissive will wasn’t present in the supralapsarian doctrine, but “poof” like magic, it has poofed up their problem with the fall, like the best fabric softener ever invented! It is written that God has declared the end from the beginning and that includes everything in between, including the fall. So to pretend that one subject or type of act that is done has been “DECREED”, and to speak of other acts as if they have not been DECREED, making it permissible for beings to make their own decisions all of the sudden, is a conundrum that is not contained in the actual truth. The “free to fall but not free to get back up” can be worded another way, “permitted to fall but not permitted to want to be picked back up by another when the offer of help is made”. So the definition of sovereign as found in the dictionary is not “an all controlling ruler whose subjects have no free will of their own”. You will only find definitions like that in dictionaries written by religious people. It is one thing to have the supralapsarian definition of “sovereign” in an encyclopedia, but that is only describing views and words as used by religious idiots, and the truthfulness of their weird definitions is not promoted by such encyclopedias. Also worthy of note is that the supralapsarian definition of “sovereign” does not exist in the real world. There are no earthly kingdoms with a king that is all controlling and all determining, whose citizens have no free will. Now what is this about Koine greek again? The New Testament being written by the common language of the day in which each part of it was written? See this makes for a “holy Ghost” language. Of course they try to soften it with permissive will. Now the word “permissive” is even problematic, sins only beings with free will are given permission. And it does not help one iota to suggest that permissive means “God permits being to make choices and events to occur, but those beings have no free will”. Then everything becomes the permissive will, including the decree of election. If some is going to do it anyways, because they have no choice in the matter or no alternative, and God brings it to pass, then “permissive or permit” are the wrong words. So God lets happen or permits His own will? (gosh what geniuses these guys are!) The truth is the phrase permissive will only rears its ugly head only as after the phrase “free to fall” does, and this only for damage control. It is obvious to all but the oblivious bovines that if man is not free to choose to fall, then God causes him to fall. This is so blatantly blasphemous that hardline Calvinists must argue against it, or try to soften it. How about I make things a little more interesting? I DID NOT CHOOSE TO FALL, I WAS NOT UNFALLEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. Asnwer the question: Did you choose to fall, yes or no? Now when they apply the word “humanity fell” and try to include all men in the mix, that isn’t the truth now is it? Now is it time to reveal that their phrase “all humanity fell”, does not mean what it would in a that actually goes by what words mean. Now all humanity fell, means One guy fell named Adam and because Adam fell we are born “fallen”. But fallen isn’t even as it is found in a dictionary that goes by what words actually mean. For me to fall, I myself have to go through the process of falling and I clearly have not, you have not either, it is undeniable. To state that “we fell” is improper grammar, and it is actually a reference to a religious belief or doctrine that someone else fell into depravity, and because of that having occurred we are born into that same state of depravity. Depravity isn’t even used as it should be in a nonreligious dictionary, the non religious definition of depraved is not: One who was born and lives in depravity and does not have free will because of it, because of the fall of another. Please look up the definition of depraved for yourself. You will find that all who have false doctrines concerning God, they all have diefinitions of words that are not found in the dictionary and uses that are not known at all in the language of the common man of the world. What about this Koine thing again, that the bible was written in common greek with common language, common words, usages and definitions used by the world at large? The supposed history is that the early theologians argued that the new Testament was not written in the language of man, but in a Holy Ghost language. Then it is claimed that people began to understand the greek language much better through study and the later discoveries of extra biblical historical documents dated close to the time. Thus concluding that the bible was not written in a Holy Ghost language, but in the common language of the day as people used it and understood it. They make the claim even today the bible is translated and the greek exegesis of today is according to common greek. They lie of course.

This all has to do with deceptions and there is a rule about deceptions, or making that which makes no sense, seem like it does to fool people. It is impossible to use words as they are found in a common non religious dictionary and as people use words on the street, to describe and teach a false doctrine…and the false doctrine keep its ability to deceive people and cover up that it is false. The classic infralapsarians also are liars and blasphemers. The supra is the bad cop and the infra is presented as the good cop, or “the more believable doctrine”. These are all part of the satanic stage play of deception, as each character plays their respective roles. First, Adam didn’t fall into depravity to begin with, he trespassed into the knowledge of good and evil. And it is because of this trespass that death (which actually is mortality) came on Adam, Eve, and all of mankind. Secondly, flesh became corrupted in Genesis 6, not Genesis 3. It is about as bizarre as hell to rationalize that because Adam gained knowledge that his body opposed the Spirit, and your body also is exceedingly sinful as to its instincts and impulses, because Adam gained knowledge. It is not the tree of “get a sinful body tree”. It is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and God did not say to Adam that the very day he eats he will get a sinful biological nature, corrupting his flesh. God would not mislead Adam or bear false witness by an omission of the facts and dangers. The last time I saw the non religious definition of the word death or mortality, the definition was not a person having a corrupted biological nature and instincts. Thirdly, it is hardly lawful to punish the innocent and put on the pretense that the guilty have been punished. Both the infra and supra doctrines make this same mistake. Whether Christ was supposedly punished on behalf of a minority, roughly half, a majority, or all of humanity is still a violation of law.  And it is the same as to type of violation, though it is not as to the number of repeated violations. Both views have no defensible explanation for the infant that lives two months and dies. The supra or the ones that believe man has no free will, immediately try to apply some theological fabric softener to this subject of an infant that dies, and the infralapsarians have fabric softener of their own special brand. When asked about the person that dies as an infant, there are many possible lies that can be used to try and make their doctrine not rub people the wrong way with the rough fabric of it. But one thing is for sure, the supras will never say that the infant has to stand before God at the final judgment and defend himself for being sinful, then is subjected to the binky melting blast of wrath from God as if the infant is responsible, and is cast into the lake of fire, asbestos diapers and all. Last I heard, even according to supras, the elect will believe on Christ and persevere in good works. Now that isn’t exactly true now is it? Shall they try and save face and suggest that all infants who die as infants must be decreed to be of the elect? How convenient, but it is a little late for them to start applying principles to their god. The unlimited atonement infras might state that God knows that the infants would have believed if they have lived long enough to be presented with the truth. But they skip over or ignore a very big chunk of their own doctrine, which is that Christ took the punishment and wrath for the sins of all men whoever lived, and that all men whoever lived deserved that punishment. Now, are the words “all men who ever lived” defined in a non religious dictionary as, most men or all men except those suffering infant mortality? The infras do the same things as the supras do, for the supras define “that all men be saved”, as being only the elect. You may pick the most debilitated person ever born, with whatever severe malady or deformation that you can think of, is he included in the number of those that deserved the wrath of God?

Finally, the argument made by the infras against the supras is the capricious and  arbitrary God. In making this principled argument the supras God has no legal basis for being angry at the depraved for being depraved.  He is depicted as having wrath on sinful man for being sinful, and what compounds this is man is said to be not free to desire goodness and cannot. Plus there is no salvation plan offered the man by God. The supras simply claim that God is free to do this because He is SOVEREIGN! Now sovereign means that God can do whatever He wants whenever He wants to whomever He wants, good or evil, lawful or unlawful. It is at this moment that the first inklings of what seems to be the understanding of the basics of law is understood by the infralapsarians. But it vanishes very quickly like a glint of light from Venus reflecting off the surface of a pigs bathwater. However to tell the truth it was never there and there was no flashy thing used to erase the memory. The supras play the bad cops or the more obvious deception for the more dense and low brow type religious person and the infras doctrine is the more refined and is designed to appear more lawful or more believable. Of the two the infralapsarian view is the one more capable of deceiving those that seek the truth. I dare say that the supralapsarian doctrine is for those that goodness itself is not even part of their search. That is why they keep saying that “God is sovereign”, because they cannot portray their God as “good”, so they don’t even try. Perhaps the hardline Calvinists should put themselves in their God’s shoes, or perhaps you should. Would you create man enslaved to sin and not free to desire goodness? And would you not propose any solution for them and then have wrath on them because they do not live up to your standards and cannot? This reminds me of the man that was beaten up and robbed, laying there bleeding on the road…and the SOVEREIGN SAMARITAN CAME BY AND DECREED THAT HE WAS NOT OF THE ELECT, OFFERED NO HELP WHATSOEVER, BLAMED THE ROBBERY AND THE BEATING ON THE VICTIM INSTEAD OF THE ROBBERS, HEAD STOMPED THE VICTIM TO DEATH AND MADE SURE THAT HE SUFFERS MUCH WORSE IN THE AFTER LIFE. if you acted like this would you be good, could you call yourself good or caring? It is like deciding to care about one guy and his plight and deciding not to care about another guy in the exact same state and plight, and all this for what? Why are we commanded to love all men? Shall we love men that God hates? If we do that are we not calling God a liar? Do the supralapsarians love all men? Or is the definition of “all men”, not as it is found in the dictionary? Only the elect? How do they know who the elect are in order to love them? Or is the word love as they defined it not found in the dictionary? I say each man will answer for his own sins. I say God does not have wrath in infants, in order for that to be diverted unto his Son, and that no wrath was put on His Son. Are men “fallen” because they were free to fall, or because God decreed that they would? Did men deciding to fall (according to them) determine what the will of God is? Did man deciding to fall cause the sacrifice of Christ to have to happen, and if not why not? Permissive will again? Half free will? Is the definition of “not having free will” as it is found in a nonreligious dictionary, “free to fall but not free to desire to be picked back up?” The basics are butchered all across the boards by both the supra and infralapsarians. Is it good to have wrath on a man enslaved to corrupt instincts, who desires not to be, just the same as another man who loves evil and does it on purpose? How could the exact same wrath be decreed to both? The infralapsarians are no better than the suprlapsarians, they just try to make it appear that way, in order to deceive a different type of person, the more logical and rational person that actually wants to mean well. The kind of person that will not be suckered for a second that SOVEREIGN (as the supras define it) is an acceptable replacement for A GOOD GOD. So who gets the greater condemnation? I would imagine those that do the most harm and are able to deceive more effectively, which would be the infralapsarians. The good cop does the greater crimes in this case.