Supralapsarianism and Hyper-Calvinism
Prof. Culver mistakenly identifies supralapsarianism and hyper-Calvinism on p. 388 and p. 397. Supralapsarianism is the doctrine that God's decree to save some and damn others logically precedes his decree to permit the Fall, whereas hyper-Calvinism is the view that reprobates are not under a duty to repent and believe.
For what it's worth I'm also not convinced that the Westminster standards embody 'near implicit Traducianism' (p. 398), which is, in any case, compatible with the theory of federal or representative headship.
For what it's worth I'm also not convinced that the Westminster standards embody 'near implicit Traducianism' (p. 398), which is, in any case, compatible with the theory of federal or representative headship.
posted by Daniel Hill | 10:20 PM
11 Comments:
I read p. 388 at breakfast. Technically, hyper-Calavinism is any extrapolation beyond the orthodox teaching concerning God's sovereign grace. So technically he can use it in this sense.
The problem is that the term "hyper-Calvinism" is historically and conventionally used to refer to particular extreme forms of Calvinism that either deny that the Gospel can be preached indescriminately to all men (e.g. Gospel Standard Baptists), or that in no sense does God manifest love to the non-elect,esp. in the preaching of the Gospel (Protestant Reformed).
I don't think he defines Supralapsarianism very well. Your definition is better, but then no one's perfect!
He does a better job on p. 573.
His comment on p. 397 "supralapsarianism (i.e. hyper-Calvinism") again is misleading given the coventional use of those terms.
Re. traducianism (the belief that part of our spirit I transferred to our posterity, not just our genes): Culver in my opinion misunderstands what the Divines means by original sin being "conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation" is referring to.
The phrase "posterity by natural generation" is stated slightly differently in the Shorter Catechism and enables us to understand the mind of the Divines:
Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.
Gen. 2:16-17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21-22.
I understand that they were distinguishing all the natural offspring of Adam from Jesus, whose generation was not natural, but supernatural.
By natural generation, we all receive original sin (not by a traducianist methodology). As the human nature of Jesus was generated supernaturally, the original sin was not passed onto him.
Tim, I haven't started reading the set text yet, and, it's been a while since I've thought about the intricacies involved in this discussion.
Can I ask you to clarify your rejection of traducianism? 'the belief that part of our spirit is transferred to our posterity, not just our genes.' I think I'm worried about the possible dualism in all this - is there no immediate connection or link between our genes and our spirit? The creation of a new body must be simultaneous with the creation of a new soul. Is 'ordinary generation' not inclusive of generation of the soul or spirit (I tend to be bipartite if I'm pushed on the issue)?
Does creationism mean that God creates sinners? (I object to the idea that God creates a pure soul that is sullied only by association with an impure body - this is hopelessly dualistic, with no foundation that I can see in the biblical texts.)
Thanks
David, the standard creationist view is that God inflicts the newly-created soul with depravity as a punishment for the soul's sinning in Adam.
Brethren,
All I can say is that biology shows that two sets of genes make a new body, and that the Bible tells us the following regarding our spirits:
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." (Psa 51:5)
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned..." (Rom. 5:12)
From our very conception we have a sinful nature, because we sinned in our First Father as our federal representative.
What I am saying is that in the light of the Shorter Catechism as traditionally understood, we have an alternative and (given the parallelism in the Standards) more likely interpretation of these words than traducianism.
I confess myself no more knowledgeable about traducianism than Wikipedia has allowed me!
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deut 29:29)
I just wonder if both creationism and traducianism are nonsense, because they are founded on unbiblical philosophical categories and terms, and they are theories that were formed before a modern understanding of conception.
Daniel, I think you've just compounded the difficulty and the mystery...
Tim, thanks for all your stimulating posts. Most of what I know on the subject comes from Berkhof...
David, if you think we have a spirit/soul then one of traducianism or creationism is surely right: either God creates the soul/spirit or it is generated along with the body by the parents. What other option is remotely plausible? Of course, some deny that we have a spirit/soul, but the Bible talks a lot about it.
I think we have a spirit/soul - but humans are psychosomatic units. I find it difficult to separate body and soul in my thinking about what it means to be human. Does this mean I'm traducian by default? Perhaps - I find the idea of a special act of creation for every new human being difficult - new human life is formed fairly easily by quite mechanical means!!
Only in the horror of death do we see separation of body and soul. (Please query this assumption - I can't think of bible texts that suggest otherwise.) Until then they are bound together. If the body does not require a special act of creation, why do we need to argue that the soul does? What's special about the soul? In fact, what is a 'soul'?
David,
I haven't been at the Culverites for awhile, but now that things have settled down from holidays, I have been reading up... I'm not sure what I think about traducianism, but I'll leave that until we come to that in the book.
However, I did want to respond to your questions about the soul: "What's special about the soul? In fact, what is a 'soul'?"
Looking at the biblical texts on the soul, I think it is clear first of all that the soul is a distinct entity: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28.
The soul seems to be special as being specially part of man as the image of God; animals are never referred to as having souls. The translated word "soul" seems to be used in varying ways throughout Scripture, but often seems to refer to the seat of thinking emotions (Matt. 26:38), and often to someone's intrinsic being (Ps. 103:1; that which is saved: Heb. 10:39; I Pet. 1:9). Also seems to be parallel to heart and mind: Deut. 4:29; Matt. 22:37.
I hope this helps some! I learned a lot too! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home