Logical Order vs. Deliberative Order

[John Bauer]

I really don't know but maybe this can finally show John Bauer why I have a problem with lapsarianism. You can't order God's decree(s).

They cannot be temporally ordered? True.

They cannot be logically ordered? False.

Logically ordered just is temporally ordered? False.

 

[makesends]

They cannot be temporally ordered? True.

They cannot be logically ordered? False.

Logically ordered just is temporally ordered? False.

Just repeating past statements, but:

—Temporally ordered? True that they cannot be ordered by the creature
—Logically ordered? True, that they cannot be logically ordered by the creature, BECAUSE they are all one decree BY GOD, including the many decrees BY GOD. We CAN logically order what God decreed. We cannot logically order the decree(s). We can, perhaps, even see a logical order to the decrees, as though they were not all decreed from the beginning, which might give us hints as to why he decreed what he decreed. Is lapsarianism only that—a listing of what we see as logical ordered, each thing contingent on what came before it, etc? WE cannot logically order his decrees, even if we think that one decree came as a result of the other (which is false).

Do we think that he ordered one decree as a second thought to something else he had decreed logically-before?

I'm sorry. I just don't see how we can call God's decrees, as logically sequenced. The things he decreed, yes.

 

[John Bauer]

We can logically order what God decreed. We cannot logically order the decree(s).

Those two statements are contradictory.

We cannot logically order his decrees, even if we think that one decree came as a result of the other (which is false).

Indeed, that is false. But logically ordered and discursive are not the same thing. Regarding God’s decree, I affirm the former and deny the latter. No one in either the infra- or supralapsarian camp says that the things decreed were successive or deliberative, as though one arose in response to another. A logical order simply means that one thing presupposes another. For example, to speak of the reprobate is to entail the elect—two elements of God’s decree—because to be reprobate is, by definition, to be not elect.

Perhaps you don’t know what “discursive” means, because I did say in that same thread, “God’s knowledge is archetypal, original, infinite, and complete in himself (exhaustive and non-discursive).” The difficulty, then, is not with the concept of logical order itself but in a continuing conflation of logical order with deliberative order.

Do we think that he ordered one decree as a second thought to something else he had decreed logically-before?

No, for that is discursive, which is denied when it comes to God—as I clearly stated in a previous post.

I'm sorry. I just don't see how we can call God's decrees as logically sequenced.

Again, that would be discursive.

God’s decree is logically ordered (elements stand in a relation of entailment or presupposition), not logically sequenced (move from one thing to the next). It is not as if God decided that these would be the elect, and then decided that those others would be the reprobate (discursive sequence). Rather, within the one eternal and non-discursive decree, the category of the “elect” necessarily entails the correlative category of the “not elect” (reprobate). That is logical order, not logical sequence.

Edited to add:

We already do this elsewhere in theology. We routinely make real conceptual distinctions in God without implying real composition in God. We speak of God as just, omnipotent, eternal, and so on without imagining that he is composed of parts. These are real conceptual distinctions in our theology, not divisions in God.

The same applies here. To speak of a logical order in the decree is not to divide the decree into temporal or deliberative stages, but to make a conceptual distinction regarding the relation of the things decreed within the one simple act of God.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
We can logically order what God decreed. We cannot logically order the decree(s).

Those two statements are contradictory.

In your view, I don't doubt it. I'll explain below, best I can.

makesends said:
We cannot logically order his decrees, even if we think that one decree came as a result of the other (which is false).

Indeed, that is false. But logically ordered and discursive are not the same thing. Regarding God’s decree, I affirm the former and deny the latter. No one in either the infra- or supralapsarian camp says that the things decreed were successive or deliberative, as though one arose in response to another. A logical order simply means that one thing presupposes another. For example, to speak of the reprobate is to entail the elect—two elements of God’s decree—because to be reprobate is, by definition, to be not elect.

Perhaps you don’t know what “discursive” means, because I did say in that same thread, “God’s knowledge is archetypal, original, infinite, and complete in himself (exhaustive and non-discursive).” The difficulty, then, is not with the concept of logical order itself but in a continuing conflation of logical order with deliberative order.

I'm saying that we don't have the authority nor knowledge nor status nor anything else to say that the one decree presupposes the other. God's "decisions" are altogether one. We see the effects of them. We even see, to a small degree, the Effect (singular) he has spoken into being. But how he did it is beyond us. We can arrange the effects, (abstractly), into a logical sequence. Not his speaking them into fact.

If, as you agree, it is false that one decree came as a result of the other, then how is logically ordering God's decrees a valid notion?

makesends said:
I'm sorry. I just don't see how we can call God's decrees as logically sequenced.

Again, that would be discursive.

God’s decree is logically ordered (elements stand in a relation of entailment or presupposition), not logically sequenced (move from one thing to the next). It is not as if God decided that these would be the elect, and then decided that those others would be the reprobate (discursive sequence). Rather, within the one eternal and non-discursive decree, the category of the “elect” necessarily entails the correlative category of the “not elect” (reprobate). That is logical order, not logical sequence.

I don't see this. To me, to ORDER logically God's decree(s), is to place, apparently by fiat, the sequence in which it(they) is(are) decreed.

Edited to add:

We already do this elsewhere in theology. We routinely make real conceptual distinctions in God without implying real composition in God. We speak of God as just, omnipotent, eternal, and so on without imagining that he is composed of parts. These are real conceptual distinctions in our theology, not divisions in God.

The same applies here. To speak of a logical order in the decree is not to divide the decree into temporal or deliberative stages, but to make a conceptual distinction regarding the relation of the things decreed within the one simple act of God.

I disagree still. Indeed we don't say that God is made of parts. That is a good analogy, and makes my point. We can speak of the attributes separately. Indeed, we must, being altogether creatures not privy to his economy of existence.

The same applies here. To speak of a logical order in the decree is to divide the decree into parts. To you it is all the same structure, grammatically, whether one says, "decrees" or whether they say, "the things decreed". To me it is two different things.

I think it is really that simple.

 

[John Bauer]

I'm saying that we don't have the authority nor knowledge nor status nor anything else to say that the one decree presupposes the other. God's "decisions" are altogether one.

This is where you are mistaken, I think. We certainly do have the authority, knowledge, and status to recognize such logical distinctions, that God designating some as “elect” necessarily entails others being “not elect” (i.e., the latter category presupposes the former). That is not speculative intrusion into God’s point of view; it is a necessary entailment of what has been revealed.

How is it that we have this authority, knowledge, and status? Because we are image-bearers of God who possess his inscripturated and incarnated Word. The issue is not whether we can comprehend God archetypally (we cannot), but whether we, as image-bearers addressed by divine revelation, may recognize logical entailments of what has been revealed (we can).

Relatedly, logic is not a human invention imposed on God from without. It is grounded in God’s own rational, truthful, non-contradictory being. We discover it because we live in God’s world, are his image-bearers, and are addressed by his Word.

But how [God] did it is beyond us.

That does not erase the logical distinction between “elect” and “not elect.”

We can arrange the effects (abstractly) into a logical sequence.

I am talking about logical order, not logical sequence. A sequence is one kind of order, but not every order is a sequence. You persist in conflating the two, and then treat the latter as though it were equivalent to the former.

Sequence is about succession, so “logical sequence” implies discursive, step-by-step progression, which I have consistently denied.

Order is about structure, so “logical order” refers to the relation of things—their entailment, priority, or presupposition—which is what I am affirming.

So when you substitute logical sequence for logical order and then argue against the substituted claim, you are no longer engaging my argument, but a different one. That is a straw man. Please be more careful.

Incidentally, this is how I can affirm a logical order in God’s decree while denying any logical sequence in it, because they are not the same thing. Since the elements of the decree do not follow one another as discursive acts, there is no sequence. But there is nevertheless a logical order, since some elements stand in relations of entailment, presupposition, or priority to others.

To me, to ORDER logically God's decree(s) is to place, apparently by fiat, the sequence in which it (they) is (are) decreed.

Your own conflation does not represent a problem with my argument. You are redefining logical order in terms of logical sequence and then objecting to the redefinition, which is the straw man that I identified and you should carefully avoid.

I disagree still. Indeed we don't say that God is made of parts. That is a good analogy, and makes my point. We can speak of the attributes separately. Indeed, we must, being altogether creatures not privy to his economy of existence.

The same applies here. To speak of a logical order in the decree is to divide the decree into parts. To you it is all the same structure, grammatically, whether one says, "decrees" or whether they say, "the things decreed". To me it is two different things.

I think it is really that simple.

I agree that it’s a good analogy, but it actually defeats your point.

You grant that

• we can make real conceptual distinctions regarding God’s attributes without introducing parts or composition.

And yet, without any justification or showing any relevant difference, you deny that

• we can make real conceptual distinctions regarding God’s decree without introducing parts or succession,

even though in both cases these are conceptual distinctions regarding what is one in God.

Unless you can show why the principle is valid in the first case but invalid in the second, your denial is an empty assertion. “To me, it is two different things” is not an argument but a promissory note for one.

 

[makesends]

This is where you are mistaken, I think. We certainly do have the authority, knowledge, and status to recognize such logical distinctions, that God designating some as “elect” necessarily entails others being “not elect” (i.e., the latter category presupposes the former). That is not speculative intrusion into God’s point of view; it is a necessary entailment of what has been revealed.

How is it that we have this authority, knowledge, and status? Because we are image-bearers of God who possess his inscripturated and incarnated Word. The issue is not whether we can comprehend God archetypally (we cannot), but whether we, as image-bearers addressed by divine revelation, may recognize logical entailments of what has been revealed (we can).

Relatedly, logic is not a human invention imposed on God from without. It is grounded in God’s own rational, truthful, non-contradictory being. We discover it because we live in God’s world, are his image-bearers, and are addressed by his Word.



That does not erase the logical distinction between “elect” and “not elect.”



I am talking about logical order, not logical sequence. A sequence is one kind of order, but not every order is a sequence. You persist in conflating the two, and then treat the latter as though it were equivalent to the former.

Sequence is about succession, so “logical sequence” implies discursive, step-by-step progression, which I have consistently denied.

Order is about structure, so “logical order” refers to the relation of things—their entailment, priority, or presupposition—which is what I am affirming.

So when you substitute logical sequence for logical order and then argue against the substituted claim, you are no longer engaging my argument, but a different one. That is a straw man. Please be more careful.

Incidentally, this is how I can affirm a logical order in God’s decree while denying any logical sequence in it, because they are not the same thing. Since the elements of the decree do not follow one another as discursive acts, there is no sequence. But there is nevertheless a logical order, since some elements stand in relations of entailment, presupposition, or priority to others.



Your own conflation does not represent a problem with my argument. You are redefining logical order in terms of logical sequence and then objecting to the redefinition, which is the straw man that I identified and you should carefully avoid.



I agree that it’s a good analogy, but it actually defeats your point.

You grant that

• we can make real conceptual distinctions regarding God’s attributes without introducing parts or composition.

And yet, without any justification or showing any relevant difference, you deny that

• we can make real conceptual distinctions regarding God’s decree without introducing parts or succession,

even though in both cases these are conceptual distinctions regarding what is one in God.

Unless you can show why the principle is valid in the first case but invalid in the second, your denial is an empty assertion. “To me, it is two different things” is not an argument but a promissory note for one.

So brother. I don't see a resolution here, we are spending a lot of words, in some way talking past each other, and have arrived at an impasse, because: 1) you see "logically ordering God's decrees" as the same thing as "logically ordering the things God has decreed". —I don't. ; 2) I see "logically ordering" as the same thing as "logically sequencing" —you don't.

Is there more to it than that?