To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; OrthodoxPresbyterian; ears_to_hear; Aggressive Calvinist; jude24
My problem with infralapsarianism is that it seems to imply God did not create some men as reprobates and some men as saints. This is why I wondered whether we were missing something in the discussion.
I affirm a rigid double predestination. I believe that the elect are predestined to heaven and that the non-elect are predestined to hell. But it seems to me that this is not what the controversy between infralapsarians and supralapsarians is about.
524 posted on
03/30/2006 3:32:03 PM PST by
the_doc
To: the_doc; OrthodoxPresbyterian; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; ears_to_hear
I affirm a rigid double predestination. I believe that the elect are predestined to heaven and that the non-elect are predestined to hell. I don't see how you can affirm predestination and not reprobation. By definition, if you elect some people to salvation but not others, and if election is the critical difference that makes people's destiny change, by default - without any affirmative action on God's part - you must have reprobation.
525 posted on
03/30/2006 3:36:46 PM PST by
jude24
("The Church is a harlot, but she is my mother." - St. Augustine)
To: the_doc; jude24
I affirm a rigid double predestination. I believe that the elect are predestined to heaven and that the non-elect are predestined to hell. But it seems to me that this is not what the controversy between infralapsarians and supralapsarians is about.As we would 99.9% of the time I agree with you on double predestination doctor .
The issue with the order of decrees is another matter
530 posted on
04/01/2006 2:08:27 PM PST by
ears_to_hear
("I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see. ")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson