What Do I Mean By Calling Myself, "Ultraconservative"?

If you look at the description of my blog, it describes my theological stance as "Ultraconservative, charismatic, predestinarian, and non-dispensational". Now if you look at the various posts on this site, my statement of faith, and some of my recommended resources, it should become pretty plain what I mean by charismatic, predestinarian, and non-dispensational. But while the astute reader might also discern my classical evangelical beliefs from the above, it seemed good to me to elucidate the reasons why I decided to describe my basic theology as "ultraconservative".

I think the primary reason why I chose to add the prefix "ultra" to the noun "conservative" is because we sadly live in a theological world where those who are surely the least conservative are considered to be so. I'll admit, as much as I dislike many of the tired jeremiads that make the rounds on the blogosphere (especially the reformed corner of the same) lamenting the sorry state of evangelicalism in America, there is, unfortunately, a lot of truth to it. We inhabit in a theological climate where leaders like, say, Andy Stanley, Gregory Boyd, and Joel Osteen are considered "conservative"; evidently alongside, say, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and D.A. Carson. For good measure, on the charismatic side of the fence, Adrian Warnock is more conservative, even Calvinistic, yet has some very questionable perspectives.

Because of these things, to simply describe myself as "conservative", just didn't seem to communicate enough. So, to emphasize the fact, I opted for "ultraconservative". Now to be sure, I do tend to take the more right of center positions on issues like creation and the roles of men and women in the church. But as important as those are, what I really have in mind by stating that I am "ultraconservative", is a particularly high view of the Bible and its inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and authority (spoiler alert, I affirm all four). By ultraconservative, I mean that I affirm the truthfulness and historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ's person, life, miracles, death, resurrection, and ascension. I affirm the Scripture's teaching on marriage and sexuality as historically understood by the Church throughout the centuries. I affirm the reality of final judgment and hell,...and...well I am sure you get the idea.

All that said, I thought bringing some clarity to my definitions would be profitable. One of the problems with words is how easily they can be misunderstood, or worse, hijacked by those whose intentions are far from godly. If the Council of Nicea taught us anything (or if you have ever tried talking to a Mormon!), it is that precise definitions of our words and terms can sometimes make an eternal difference.

Double Predestination and Supralapsarianism

Before I get too much into this, I want to state clearly that I do not consider this a subject that should divide believers. I also think that whatever stance one takes on this, it should be taken with a lot of humility and care, since we are dealing with something as holy and serious as divine decrees which exist within the mind of God Himself. We are also dealing with questions about the destinies of real human beings. This is a question on which I very much could be wrong. I am open to correction on this should I see compelling Scriptural reasons. Nevertheless, at this moment anyway, I feel pretty confident in my stance.

I freely admit that I hold to Double Predestination (Hereafter DP) and Supralapsarianism (Hereafter SL). It seems to me that these are the implications of Romans 9 especially. I am in fact, a "High Calvinist", though not a "Hyper Calvinist." Essentially, I hold that God's election to eternal life is active. I similarly hold that reprobation to eternal death is active. This is basically what double predestination is: God actively decreed the fates of both (hence "double") the elect (those predestined for eternal life) and the reprobate (those predestined for eternal spiritual death). I understand Infralapsarianism (Hereafter IL) to agree with me on the first point, but disagree with me on the second. Those who hold to IL would posit that reprobation is passive. God simply "passed over" those condemned sinners He chose not to elect to Life, rather than actively ordaining them to death.

Supralapsarianism is part of that scheme. According to Allison, SL can be defined as follows:

One of two reformed positions regarding the order of God's decrees, the other being infralapsarianism. The issue concerns whether logically, not temporally, God's decree to save people came before (Lat[in], supra) or after (sub) his decree to permit the fall (lapsus). Supralapsarianism holds this order: (1) God decreed to elect some people and condemn others; (2) he decreed to create both the elect and the reprobate; (3) he decreed to permit the fall of both groups. Election and reprobation, then, refer to people not yet created or fallen into sin.[1]

Now recently, it was pointed out to me the fact that none of the Reformed confessions teach SL, but some explicitly or implicitly affirm IL. I do not dispute that in the least. It was also been pointed out that very few Reformed theologians in history were/are SL. Again, I don't dispute that.

On the one hand, at the risk of being redundant, I should state again that I am NOT Reformed. While I affirm predestination and sovereign election, I do not consider myself to belong to the Reformed tradition, so I don't necessarily feel that I have to fall in line with the majority Reformed view. I don't ignore it, but I am not beholden to it either. But even if we leave that off to the side, while DP/SL is not the majority view, it's not unheard of either. Unless I am greatly mistaken, I do believe that men such as Gottschalk of Orbais, Theodore Beza, William Twisse, Herman Hoeksema, Gordon Clark, and Robert L. Reymond held to DP/SL in one form or another.

But going to Scripture, I understand reprobation to be just as active as election and that the decrees to save and to damn were made over and above the decree to permit the Fall of man into sin.

And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger. As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."  (Romans 9:10-13 NKJV)

For the Scripture says to the Pharoah, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.  (Romans 9:17-18 NKJV)

Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory..."  (Romans 9:22-23 NKJV)

For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32 NKJV)

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.  (1 Peter 2:8 NKJV).

For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4 NKJV) 

These Scriptures seem to imply more than a "passing over" of the finally reprobate. They also seem to say that God did not yet consider either the elect or the reprobate "fallen", although I should say that we are not talking about chronology, but rather logical progression.

Again, I want to state that this is, at best, a third order doctrinal question. It is not something to divide over or fight over. I offer this up with as much humility as I know how. Take it or leave it as you will, and if in anything I can be shown to be mistaken, I will gladly admit my error and correct it.

[1] Gregg R. Allison, The Baker Compact Dictionary of Theological Terms, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016), 204.