Not all Calvinist are in agreement on every point of Calvinism. The main disagreement hinges on the logical order of God’s eternal decrees. {Do not confuse this with chronological order, because all Calvinist believe that God’s decrees were before the foundation of the world. The debate is concerning the logical order of the eternal decrees.} Three main theories have emerged as noted in the chart below: Amyraldianism, Infralapsarianism, and Supralapsarianism.
Dr. Curt Daniel provides a helpful set of lists in his book entitled The History and Theology of Calvinism as seen in the chart below:
|
Amyraldianism |
Infralapsarianism “Moderate” Calvinism |
Supralapsarianism “High” Calvinism |
|
1. Decree to Create Man |
1. Decree to Create Man |
1. Decree Election and Reprobation |
|
2. Decree to Allow Fall |
2. Decree to Allow Fall |
2. Decree to Allow Fall |
|
3. Decree Atonement for all men |
3. Decree Election and Reprobation |
3. Decree Atonement for Elect |
|
4. Decree election and Reprobation |
4. Decree Atonement for Elect |
4. Decree to Create Man |
Note: Infra means after. Supra means before. Lapsus means fall.
Fact: Amyraldian is named after a French Calvinist named Moyse Amyraut (1596-1664).
Amyraldist or “Low” Calvinist believe that God decreed for Christ to die for all of mankind and then God chose who would be saved. Thus “Low” Calvinist can be called “Hypothetical Universalist” because they believe that it is hypothetically possible for all men to be saved, but since they will not choose Christ, God elected some to be saved. Christ died for the unelect but the atonement was of no effect, actually wasted. It is sometimes called “4-Point Calvinism” because of the universal atonement discrepancy. In the end, this view still believes that only an elect get saved.
Supralapsarianist or “High” Calvinist believe that God chose to have an elect and thus decreed that which would make it happen, thus holding to the harshest form of double predestination. Homer Hoeksema, a High Calvinist, noted that according to this theory history unfolded exactly opposite of the order of God’s decrees, because God’s first decree (the elect) is His ultimate goal. One weakness in this is how can God elect out of that which doesn’t necessarily or potentially exist yet. And how could God choose to elect and reprobate out of a non-fallen human race. But the High Calvinist appeal to Romans 9:11, noting that Jacob and Esau “had not done anything good or bad.” Also, the High Calvinist appeal to a purpose of giving the greatest glory to God by teaching that election and reprobation are based on nothing but bare sovereignty. Not all “High” Calvinist are hyper-Calvinist (anti-missionism, reject “Duty Faith”, and deny common grace), but all hyper-Calvinist are Supralapsarian. J.R. Rice and Norman Geisler were harmfully incorrect in claiming that all Calvinist are Hyper-Calvinist.
Infralapsarianist or “Moderate” Calvinist believe God chose His elect from among Fallen mankind prior to the atonement decree, thus Christ only died for the elect. They appeal to John 15:19, “I chose you out of the world.” Also, they point out that the lump of clay in Romans 9 is obviously a “fallen” lump of clay. And they point out that if God had elected from an unfallen mass of humanity as the High Calvinist propose then that would not be grace, and the decree of reprobation from an unfallen mankind would not be just. All major Reformation Creeds are infralapsarian.
Remember: All Calvinist agree that whatever the logical order of God’s decrees, they were in etenity past by a sovereign God. That seperates Calvinist as Particularistic as opposed to Universalistic (Lutheran, Weslyan, Universalist), Sacerdotal (Anglican, Roman, Orthodox Greek), and Naturalistic (Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian).
Most Calvinist are Infralapsarian. Many Calvinist are Amyraldian. In fact, many Southern Baptist that I have met are Amyraldian. And around 5% of Calvinist are Supralapsarian.
I truly believe that most of the debate that rages in the SBC over Calvinism is because most of the Amyraldians don’t even know that they are Calvinist, and they believe that all Calvinist are Hyper-Calvinist. But in all my years as a Calvinist, I don’t know if I have ever met more than a couple of Supralapsarians… and they were not hyper-Calvinist!
Here is a list of representatives of the different views:
Low Calvinist
Richard Baxter
John Bunyan
Timothy Dwight
A. H. Strong
Henry Thiessen
J.C.Ryle
Lewis Sperry Chafer
R.T.Kendall
Moderate Calvinist
John Calvin
John Owen
Thomas Watson
Matthew Henry
George Whitefield
Jonathan Edwards
C.H. Spurgeon
Charles Hodge
Thornwell
William G.T. Shedd
L. Boettner
Anthony Hoekema
Robert Lewis Dabney
B.B. Warfield
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
High Calvinist
Beza
John Gill
Abraham Kuyper
Herman Hoeksema
A. W. Pink
Cornelius Van Til
Gordon Clark
Louis Berkhof
Karl Barth
Robert Reymond
————————————————————————–
Also, read notes on this subject by Phillip Johnson
and click below for a larger version of B.B. Warfield’s chart.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
I didn’t realize my view was so rare among Calvinists, for I am a Supralapsarian. Ephesians 1 is a chapter that I cite for this stance.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Last fall, I switched from an SBC to a Reformed Baptist church because of blogging pastors like you, who were used by God to teach me the Doctrines of Grace. This week, I’ve been following your discussion of Calvinism with great interest. Thanks so much for taking the time to write up these things in your blog!! You are furthering my understanding of Calvinism. Now, I understand what are the kinds of Calvinists. I had not seen addressed elsewhere. Keep on defending God’s truth and in doing so, influencing me, and others.
I love it — Calvin was a moderate calvinist
I’ll have to try to be a moderate Keith.
Keith
This is a very helpful overview, good stuff. Thanks!!
Joe><>
I’m an X-treme Josh.
I somehow doubt that Amyraldians would consider the atonement “wasted,” since it was actually applied to the elect. Since when was Karl Barth ever a supralapsarian?
Karl Barth is most known for his neo-orthodoxy error. But as far as the decrees of God are concerned, Karl Barth declared God’s prime purpose was that: He Himself, His glory, and especially His mercy and justice should be revealed among men and to men by means of salvation of some and damnation of others. To this proper divine will and decree of God everything else is subordinate, as an interrelated means to its accomplishment. This Barth saw as the Supralapsarian position. He continued that the Infralapsarian position was less precise in its formulation. According to Barth while both insist that God’s eternal purpose is to reveal and glorify Himself, the Infralapsarian doesn’t provide the details of this statement,
And sometimes my brain hurts, if you know what I mean.
refusing to claim any exact knowledge as to content or reason behind God s primal plan. I disagree with Barth on many issues, but the debate between Supra- and Infra- is one that I may argue from either side
I’m not an expert in John Bunyan but I’m pretty sure I heard Dr. Tom Nettles quoting Bunyan’s theology noting his infralapsarian position.
It was in a lecture entitled
Doctrines of Grace in Baptist History (either part 1 or 2) at:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonssource&sermonID=10270310371
(Sorry for the long link)
Compliments of Mt. Olive Tape Library, Inc. at SermonAudio.com
I always forget which is which between infra & supra…
Mention of Geisler reminds me of how I’ve encountered Arminians and ROman Catholics who try to make a big deal about the differences between the supra & Infra views, and as long as one doesn’t go into hyper territory–it’s not usually a huge deal.
In fact Pink quit congregations and refused to attend others because they were hyper.
Dox, TR Rocks. Betcha wouldn’t hear Calvin shouting that huh?
Good synopsis, except that Robert Reymond has qualified his position as ‘teleological.’ It’s basically a modified suprlapsarianism. Unfortunately, I cannot for the life of me remember the change he made. Oh, and I think Piper is a supra; I even have a prof who tries to label him as hyper. Go figure.
One last note: I think Gordon Clark is turning over in his grave, seeing his name next to Van Til’s.
I really appreciate that post; it’s succeeds in being simultaneously succint and informative.
Thanks.
I am infra though I think I might lean slightly to Amyralt but not enough to be considered in his camp. I appreciate the fact that you put Amyraldianism in the Calvinist camp in that this view is often scorned by strict Calvinists.
I didn’t realize either that supra was so low. Guess I am in the minority. Minorities though soon become majorities. So watch out!!!
HA! John Calvin was only a moderate calvinist. That is greatness.
I truly believe that most of the debate that rages in the SBC over Calvinism is because most of the Amyraldians don’t even know that they are Calvinist, and they believe that all Calvinist are Hyper-Calvinists.
This is also the same debate that happens in the Calvary church movement.
I’m not a christian, just someone searching for answers, and i sincerely hope the subscribers of Amyraldianism are correct. for if i ever choose to accept christianity as my faith i hope there is a little saving grace……
I’ve always known I was “mostly a calvinist”. I’ve even desrcibed myself as a “calvinist… just not a very good one.” Now, I know there is a word to describe what I believe: Amyraldianism.
Thanks for a thoughtful (if occasionally biting) blog. I’ve added fide-o to my blogroll.
The Link at the bottom does work.. I would like to see it, do you have an updated link?