Content deleted Content added
No edit summary Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 46:
The difficulty in ascertaining an historical supralapsarian position is that while many supralapsarians may have held similar positions with regard to the ordering of the decree, the actual object and subject of predestination may differ among many. The example of [[William Twisse]] may be interesting to many given some of his emphases, which may not be as unique to him historically.
Concerning his doctrine of salvation, Twisse was explicitly and staunchly supralapsarian. However, it is difficult
▲The result or final intention of the divine decree is the manifestation of God's glory particularly through the application of divine mercy upon some and divine justice upon others. God's mercy is shown to some in both the forgiveness of those guilty of imputed and actual sin and the bestowal of eternal life. On the other hand, God's justice is shown in the permitting of those who are guilty of imputed and actual sin to continue on their chosen path and the bestowal of divine judgment for their unrepentant disobedience. As the manifestation of glory through mercy and justice is the final intention, given the dictum, it is the last set of elements to come to pass within history, or last in execution. What is not clear is how supralapsarians saw the means playing out to this final end.
Infralapsarians regarded the Fall as an occasion for election and reprobation, choosing some out of a fallen mass and passing by others. In the supralapsarian view, Twisse maintained that the Fall did not occasion election or reprobation. But he also did not believe that the gulf between infra- and supralapsarians was that extensive, thus stating that the differences between the two were “meerely Logicall."<ref>{{harvnb|Twisse|1653|loc=i. 4}}</ref> Although he did not believe that the Fall occasioned election and reprobation, he did not maintain that election and reprobation had no regard for the Fall whatsoever.
|