How close

[Trips]

How close is this:

God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestined, from among men, whom he did not consider as being then created, much less as being fallen, certain individuals to everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy or to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power.

[Reformed Baptist]

How close is this:

God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestined, from among men, whom he did not consider as being then created, much less as being fallen, certain individuals to everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy or to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power.

To what brother,

It is actually a quote of Arminius summarising Gomarus' supralapsarian view is it not?

A view which Arminius would then go on and list 20 objections to in his 'Declaration of Sentiments' Now perhaps Arminius's strongest objection was that any doctrine of unconditional election is "injurious to the glory of God" to quote him.

[Trips]

That it is RB. It was Arminius' paraphrase and the basis for his arguments. My question, poorly phrased I can see now, is how close is this to what you hold to as truth? Where does it diverge, if it does, to what you hold to? I ask so that I may more fully understand Arminius' arguments and know if they are based on fact or a misinterpretation as I see other arguments have been based on not quite the truth.

[Reformed Baptist]

That it is RB. It was Arminius' paraphrase and the basis for his arguments. My question, poorly phrased I can see now, is how close is this to what you hold to as truth? Where does it diverge, if it does, to what you hold to? I ask so that I may more fully understand Arminius' arguments and know if they are based on fact or a misinterpretation as I see other arguments have been based on not quite the truth.

OK, but Arminius was not argueing against me, he was argueing against Gomarus, and in my opinion he would have done better to use Gomarus' words rather then a paraphrase .

I am pushed for time, but I suppose I would say it something like this if I was trying to keep the wording as close as possible to that of Arminius:D

God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestined, from among men, (whom he would create) certain individuals to everlasting life. Others he chose not to elect but rather to leave to their eternal distruction (reprobation). This choice was made without any regard to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, ie this election is unconditional, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy in his saving grace, wisdom and power. To bring this wonderful purpose about God decreed, not only the creation of mankind, but also that man must fall from the innocent state into a state of sin, furthermore God has decreed that he will purchase said 'elect' covenant poeple by the atoning work of his son Jesus Christ.

[Nomad]

I'll second RB's summary. I'm a supralapsarian as well. You might find the following link useful:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm