supralapsarianism

We have thus had brought before us four forms of Calvinism, and these, as we believe, exhaust the list of possible general types.

Supralapsarianism, sub- or infralapsarianism, post-redemptionism, otherwise called amiraldianism or hypothetical universalism, and paginism, otherwise called congruism.

these are all forms of calvinism because they all give validity to the principle of particularism as ruling the divine dealings with man in the matter of salvation and as we have seen the mark of calvinism is particularism if now particularism were not only the mark of calvinism but also the substance of calvinism all four of these types of calvinism preserving as they all do the principle of particularism might claim to be not only alike calvinistic but equally calvinistic and might even demand to be arranged in the order of excellence according to the place accorded by each in its construction to the principle of particularism and the emphasis placed on it particularism however though the distinguishing mark of calvinism by which it may be identified as over against the other conceptions of the plan of salvation in comparison with which we have brought it does not constitute its substance and indeed although strenuously affirmed by calvinism is not affirmed by it altogether and solely for its own sake the most consistent embodiment of the principle of particularism is not therefore necessarily the best form of calvinism and the bare affirmation of the principle of particularism though it may constitute one so far a calvinist does not necessarily constitute one a good calvinist no one can be a calvinist who does not give validity to the principle of particularism in god's operations looking to the salvation of man but the principle of particularism must not be permitted as pharaoh's lean kind devoured all the fat cattle of egypt to swallow up all else that is rich and succulent and good in calvinism nor can the bare affirmation of particularism be accepted as an adequate calvinism Post-redemptionism, therefore, although it is a recognizable form of Calvinism because it gives real validity to the principle of particularism, is not therefore necessarily a good form of Calvinism, an acceptable form of Calvinism, or even a tenable form of Calvinism.

For one thing, it is a logically inconsistent form of Calvinism, and therefore an unstable form of Calvinism.

There's a fancy word for that.

Supralapsarian.

Supralapsarian, yes.

Which no one who hasn't spent any time in theological cemetery would.

Right.

unconditional election, as we said, is that before the foundation of the world decree happened, on the part of God to pick out the ones that are, uh, elect.

And when it comes to the non-elect, there's, you know, minutia disputes between, uh, various Calvinists and Puritans and so forth as to, uh, you know, pre-Lapsarian and post-Lapsarian.

And did God decree the damnation of the reprobate in an equal double predestination? Or is there a kind of, uh, you know, we're not going to get into that because that's, that's a inter-Calvinistic type of dispute.

Um, But just for the purpose of understanding TULIP, that's what we see the doctrine of election means.