Objections To the Supralapsarian

[Dave]

This is not available on line any more without jumping through a ton of hoops. I've been looking. This is an old cut and paste from twenty years ago. This is where the supra infra debate ended for me. I felt the same way, but had a hard time putting it into words. I would like to find Dabney's objections to the whole thing/works, if I could. He also objects to infra, but his objection to the supra side seemed more profound, if for no other reason, because it seems like it's more fashionable for Calvinists to be supra these days.

Dabney's: "Objections To the Supralapsarian"

Objections To the Supralapsarian.

But we object more particularly to the Supralapsarian scheme.

(a) That it is erroneous in representing God as having before His mind, as the objects of predestination, men conceived in posse only; and in making creation a means of their salvation or damnation. Whereas, an object must be conceived as existing, in order to have its destiny given to it. And creation can with no propriety be called a means for effectuating a decree of predestination as to creatures. It is rather a prerequisite of such decree.

(b.) It contradicts Scripture, which teaches us that God chose His elect "out of the world," John 15:19, and out of the "same lump" with the vessels of dishonor (Rom. 9:21). They were then regarded as being, along with the non–elect, in the common state of sin and misery.

(c.) Our election is in Christ our Redeemer (Eph. 1:4; 3:11), which clearly shows that we are conceived as being fallen, and in need of a Redeemer, in this act. And, moreover, our election is an election to the exercise of saving graces to be wrought in us by Christ (1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Thess. 2:13). (d.) Election is declared to be an act of mercy (Rom. 9:15 16, 11:5, 6), and preterition is an act of justice (Rom. 9:22). Now as mercy and goodness imply an apprehension of guilt and misery in their object, so justice implies ill-desert. This shows that man is predestined as fallen; and is not permitted to fall because predestined. I will conclude this part, by repeating the language of Turrettin, Loc. 4, Qu. 18, 5.

1. "By this hypothesis, the first act of God’s will towards some of His creatures is conceived to be an act of hatred, in so far as He willed to demonstrate His righteousness in their damnation, and indeed before they were considered as in sin, and consequently before they were deserving of hatred; nay, while they were conceived as still innocent, and so rather the objects of love. This does not seem compatible with God’s ineffable goodness.

2. "It is likewise harsh that, according to this scheme, God is supposed to have imparted to them far the greatest effects of love, out of a principle of hatred, in that He determines to create them in a state of integrity to this end, that He may illustrate His righteousness in their damnation. This seems to express Him neither as supremely good nor as supremely wise and just.

3. "It is erroneously supposed that God exercised an act of mercy and justice towards His creatures in His foreordination of their salvation and destruction, in that they are conceived as neither wretched, nor even existing as yet. But since those virtues (mercy and justice) are relative, they pre-suppose their object, do not make it.

4. "It is also asserted without warrant, that creation and the fall are means of election and reprobation, since they are antecedent to them: else sin would be on account of damnation, whereas damnation is on account of sin; and God would be said to have created men that He might destroy them."

Chapter 18: Predestination

 

[makesends]

This is not available on line any more without jumping through a ton of hoops. I've been looking. This is an old cut and paste from twenty years ago. This is where the supra infra debate ended for me. I felt the same way, but had a hard time putting it into words. I would like to find Dabney's objections to the whole thing/works, if I could. He also objects to infra, but his objection to the supra side seemed more profound, if for no other reason, because it seems like it's more fashionable for Calvinists to be supra these days.

Dabney's: "Objections To the Supralapsarian"

Objections To the Supralapsarian.

But we object more particularly to the Supralapsarian scheme.

(a) That it is erroneous in representing God as having before His mind, as the objects of predestination, men conceived in posse only; and in making creation a means of their salvation or damnation. Whereas, an object must be conceived as existing, in order to have its destiny given to it. And creation can with no propriety be called a means for effectuating a decree of predestination as to creatures. It is rather a prerequisite of such decree.

(b.) It contradicts Scripture, which teaches us that God chose His elect "out of the world," John 15:19, and out of the "same lump" with the vessels of dishonor (Rom. 9:21). They were then regarded as being, along with the non–elect, in the common state of sin and misery.

(c.) Our election is in Christ our Redeemer (Eph. 1:4; 3:11), which clearly shows that we are conceived as being fallen, and in need of a Redeemer, in this act. And, moreover, our election is an election to the exercise of saving graces to be wrought in us by Christ (1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Thess. 2:13). (d.) Election is declared to be an act of mercy (Rom. 9:15 16, 11:5, 6), and preterition is an act of justice (Rom. 9:22). Now as mercy and goodness imply an apprehension of guilt and misery in their object, so justice implies ill-desert. This shows that man is predestined as fallen; and is not permitted to fall because predestined. I will conclude this part, by repeating the language of Turrettin, Loc. 4, Qu. 18, 5.

1. "By this hypothesis, the first act of God’s will towards some of His creatures is conceived to be an act of hatred, in so far as He willed to demonstrate His righteousness in their damnation, and indeed before they were considered as in sin, and consequently before they were deserving of hatred; nay, while they were conceived as still innocent, and so rather the objects of love. This does not seem compatible with God’s ineffable goodness.

2. "It is likewise harsh that, according to this scheme, God is supposed to have imparted to them far the greatest effects of love, out of a principle of hatred, in that He determines to create them in a state of integrity to this end, that He may illustrate His righteousness in their damnation. This seems to express Him neither as supremely good nor as supremely wise and just.

3. "It is erroneously supposed that God exercised an act of mercy and justice towards His creatures in His foreordination of their salvation and destruction, in that they are conceived as neither wretched, nor even existing as yet. But since those virtues (mercy and justice) are relative, they pre-suppose their object, do not make it.

4. "It is also asserted without warrant, that creation and the fall are means of election and reprobation, since they are antecedent to them: else sin would be on account of damnation, whereas damnation is on account of sin; and God would be said to have created men that He might destroy them."

Chapter 18: Predestination

I'm seeing no warrant for either infra nor supralapsarian, as I have heard them described; their premises are built on notions of God's decree and creation being for the purpose of salvation / reprobation, quite apart from the end product that I see God having in mind from the beginning (The Bride, etc). But, maybe I'm getting one or the other wrong. But if I had to choose one, it would be supralapsarian, as it seems the more comprehensive of God's economy, in which God's decrees are not dependent upon further decrees and their results.

Further, I see no need for a logical causal progression within them, being God's decree in every particular. But maybe I'm missing something in a good definition of either.

Thus, I don't really follow the arguments for one against the other, except in parts where certain things are assumed.

In the above, a few things don't seem to me good arguments:

b) "It contradicts Scripture" —The fact that scripture uses the terms concerning the election, "out of the world", and, "of the same lump", is of little consequence in the argument. It does not make the point that all are under condemnation and slavery to sin any more than hundreds of other scriptures, nor, from what I can tell, does either side imply that it was otherwise. Further, I hope the author does not think that it is only from a "pool of possibles" that God has chosen some and reprobated the rest, which notion denies the very intentional particularity by which God has made those who will be the members of that end product.

I won't continue. It may be that I merely misunderstand what is intended by "logical sequence" in these views. To my mind, if there is any logical sequence of God's decrees it is all under his first purpose —to make a people of his own who would dwell with him and he with them for the sake of his own glory. I don't see the fall making redemption necessary, anymore than I see redemption as making the fall necessary. Both are 'what it took' to create his particular creation —the Bride, etc.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Well, I think Robert L. Dabney and I need to have some words.

On a more serious note, about halfway through the Particular Baptist phase of my spiritual journey I became aware of this infralapsarian vs. supralapsarian conflict, studied it as deeply as I could at the time, and came out the other side an infralapsarian. And I felt that I was in good company because the confessional documents of the Reformed, Presbyterian, and Particular Baptist churches all use infralapsarian language. And I held that conviction for several years.

My theological education then promptly introduced me to something called the ordo salutis (order of salvation), which quite naturally led to discovering the intratrinitarian pactum salutis (covenant of redemption), and it was the latter that caused me to become more receptive to supralapsarian theology—especially once I learned of the principle "eschatology precedes soteriology" in biblical theology (i.e., God's purpose for creation was always directed toward an eschatological goal).

It turns out supralapsarians emphasize that God's purpose in election is centered on Christ as the head of a new humanity, which fits with the biblical-theological argument that Christ, as the eschatological Adam, was always the goal and not merely a response to the fall. This implies that God's decree for salvation was not merely a response to sin but part of his eternal purpose and plan from the beginning, reinforcing the idea that Christ's role as redeemer is not an afterthought or a reaction to the fall but the centerpiece of God's eternal purpose.

This view was championed in Reformed circles by such men as Geerhardus Vos, Meredith Kline, and Richard Gaffin, godly men by whom I was heavily influenced.

Here is how, for me, the pactum salutis established Christ's redemptive role before sin:

• The Son was appointed as the mediator of the elect before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9).
  
  ​
• This aligns with the supralapsarian ordering of decrees, where election and reprobation are logically prior to the decree permitting the fall.
  
  ​
• It also fits with the biblical theology dictum that eschatology precedes soteriology—God's ultimate goal (the glorified kingdom in Christ) was decreed first, and the fall and redemption were ordained as the means to that goal.

The creation by God of all reality that is distinct from God (i.e., thus including angelic beings) took place on the basis of the pactum salutis and with a view to its execution. That is to say, God's decision to elect Jesus Christ is simultaneously God's decision to create; God elects, and creation is brought into intelligible existence. Election is logically antecedent to creation but they are chronological coincidents. Thus creation has an intelligible Christological context, establishing a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be.

 

[Arial]

It turns out supralapsarians emphasize that God's purpose in election is centered on Christ as the head of a new humanity, which fits with the biblical-theological argument that Christ, as the eschatological Adam, was always the goal and not merely a response to the fall. This implies that God's decree for salvation was not merely a response to sin but part of his eternal purpose and plan from the beginning, reinforcing the idea that Christ's role as redeemer is not an afterthought or a reaction to the fall but the centerpiece of God's eternal purpose.

And I see the eternal purpose of God through the fall as being the ultimate destruction of evil of any kind, through the destruction of the devil, that serpent of old. We see this in the end result as stated to us in Scripture, most explicitly detailed in Is 11 and Rev 21. A new creature redeemed through Christ that is no longer mortal---capable of dying---and no longer corruptible. And a new creation that is therefore no longer corrupted but never will be again.

I can see why it had to be done in the way it was---through Christ after the fall---but as to what lies behind the "before creation" that made it necessary to destroy evil in this way, no human knows.

But it is all "supra" and of necessity, which would include those who are elected, imo. What I can and cannot picture is irrelevant, to be sure, but never the less if God goes about choosing who to elect from the totality of those born, would it not inevitably be based in some way on the qualities or lack of them of the person. It brings a picture to my mind of God keeping an eye on everyone and at some point saying, "You, you, not you, you." He would be learning who Christ would die for by his own choice, and it would necessarily be based on something about them.

That is just how this particular layman sees it.

 

[Dave]

Herman Bavinck

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism by Herman Bavinck

I've heard this guy quoted a few times, but never really put the time into reading him. He seems to object to both views, as does Dabney.

==========

Also... Here, Hodge objects to the supra view. Something to kick around the old noggin on a rainy day. This whole debate just seems to drain my energy and I never feel like I ever get anything positive in return for it. It's like the Holy Spirit is telling me to just stick to Scripture. And the passage saying, don't lean on to your own understanding, applies here. But I will dabble in it from time to time.

Charles Hodge Sys. Theo. Soteriology

Objections to Supralapsarianism.

The most obvious objections to the supralapsarian theory are,

(1.) That it seems to involve a contradiction. The purpose to save or condemn, of
necessity must, in the order of thought, follow the purpose to create. The
latter is presupposed in the former.

(2.) It is a clearly revealed Scriptural principle that where there is no sin
there is no condemnation. Therefore there can be no foreordination to
death which does not contemplate its objects as already sinful.

(3.) It seems plain from the whole argument of the Apostle in Romans
9:9-21, that the “mass” out of which some are chosen and others left, is the
mass of fallen men. The design of the sacred writer is to vindicate the
sovereignty of God in the dispensation of his grace. He has mercy upon
one and not on another, according to his own good pleasure, because all
are equally unworthy and guilty. The vindication is drawn, not only from
the relation of God to his creatures as their Creator, but also from his
relation to them as a sovereign whose laws they have violated. This
representation pervades the whole Scriptures. Believers are said to be
chosen “out of the world;” that is, out of the mass of fallen men. And
everywhere, as in Romans 1:24, 26, 28, reprobation is declared to be
judicial, founded upon the sinfulness of its objects. Otherwise it could not
be a manifestation of the justice of God.

(4.) Creation is never in the Bible represented as a means of executing the
purpose of election and reprobation.

And, therefore, creation is not a means to execute the purpose of
predestination, for the end must precede the means; and, according to Paul,
the purpose to create precedes the purpose to redeem, and therefore
cannot be a means to that end.

(5.) It is a further objection to the supralapsarian scheme that it is not
consistent with the Scriptural exhibition of the character of God. He is
declared to be a God of mercy and justice. But it is not compatible with
these divine attributes that men should be foreordained to misery and
eternal death as innocent, that is, before they had apostatized from God. If
passed by and foreordained to death for their sins, it must be that in
predestination they are contemplated as guilty and fallen creatures.

 

[makesends]

Charles Hodge Sys. Theo. Soteriology

Objections to Supralapsarianism.

[Quoting Hodge here:]

(5.) It is a further objection to the supralapsarian scheme that it is not
consistent with the Scriptural exhibition of the character of God. He is
declared to be a God of mercy and justice. But it is not compatible with
these divine attributes that men should be foreordained to misery and
eternal death as innocent, that is, before they had apostatized from God. If
passed by and foreordained to death for their sins, it must be that in
predestination they are contemplated as guilty and fallen creatures.

Ignoring my other objections to the notion that either position is valid, to me, this is a weak argument, at least, according to what I understand Supralapsarianism to teach. SupraL does not claim nor imply that foreordaining to misery and reprobation of whatever creatures as God chooses for that purpose, are for that purpose alone. If this is the claim of Infra, it seems to me no better than the objections of the Pelagian to Calvinistic predestination.

 

[makesends]

Please read my last comments —a sort of disclaimer— before responding the individual comments.

The creation by God of all reality that is distinct from God (i.e., thus including angelic beings) took place on the basis of the pactum salutis and with a view to its execution. That is to say, God's decision to elect Jesus Christ is simultaneously God's decision to create; God elects, and creation is brought into intelligible existence. Election is logically antecedent to creation but they are chronological coincidents. Thus creation has an intelligible Christological context, establishing a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be.

This is a pretty good description of why I reject both as necessary views. They seem to me entirely dependent on man's necessary sequence of purpose, within man's thinking, and not of God's reason or thought. We have a pretty good view of what he DID, and even some overwhelmingly beautiful notions of WHY —that is, the END RESULT for which God created [to begin with].

[Quoting Hodge, here]: (1.) That it seems to involve a contradiction. The purpose to save or condemn, of
necessity must, in the order of thought, follow the purpose to create. The
latter is presupposed in the former.

But there's the problem with both views —"order of thought". Whose thought?? God's? —I hardly think so.

[Hodge]: (4.) Creation is never in the Bible represented as a means of executing the
purpose of election and reprobation.

I disagree. Though it may well be that it is not specifically done as such, or in those particular terms. But, we can leave that alone for now, even though Hodge follows it with "therefore", as what he says next is also more than we can know.

And, therefore, creation is not a means to execute the purpose of
predestination, for the end must precede the means; and, according to Paul,
the purpose to create precedes the purpose to redeem, and therefore
cannot be a means to that end.

Hodge seems to assume here that mere vague 'predestination', and not what that predestination is for, is the end that must precede the means. Also, the logic is vapid, (again, in my opinion), that the words of Paul, (if indeed they place the purpose to create as precedent to the purpose to redeem, which I don't see proven here) because Paul always (to my current remembrance) speaks such things as within a certain context, and not as only grand overarching themes applicable to every particular. The proponents of either view seem to me to flip from particular to general at will, without realizing what they are doing.

My objections to both then, that they ignore the last end of the matter —that is, the Body of Christ and all final properties of Heaven— as being intrinsically intended in God's initial creating, and therefore as intended in every detail within the consequent events (as is also affirmed by the Attribute of God's Immanence), to me arrange only OUR conception of causal sequence, (whether natural or otherwise), and not of God's Omniscience being absolutely causal.

(Disclaimer) : I would welcome @Josheb to respond to this, because, besides his well-founded exposures of my arguments' fallacies and so on, he has repeatedly (and I think will again) rightly bring me back to "that is how the Bible presents it", as far as causal sequence and even temporal sequence. I already admit I am wrong, yet, I can't justify in my mind the ability to ignore God's Immanence and Omniscience, if indeed they are ignored within the two orders of thought— Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism. To me, they are at best, thought experiments or mental exercises, but more likely, brain games, with conclusions that ignore the method of arriving at those conclusions, that may even lead us to trust human thought as valid in and of itself, in its descriptions of the infinite divine. I would also welcome anyone else to correct me here.

 

[Josheb]

...for the end must precede the means; and, according to Paul,

Umm.... where, exactly, did Paul write, "the end must precede the means"?

.......the purpose to create precedes the purpose to redeem...

1) False dichotomy. 2) Assumes multiple purposes. 3) Assumes redemption is relevant to creative purpose. 4) Assuming supralapsarianism, the statement requires a temporal sequence in extra-temporal eternity. 5) Predicates God's purpose on a contingency (rather than the other way around).

In other words, that statement is hugely problematic for several reasons.

 

[Josheb]

(Disclaimer) : I would welcome @Josheb to respond to this, because, besides his well-founded exposures of my arguments' fallacies and so on, he has repeatedly (and I think will again) rightly bring me back to "that is how the Bible presents it", as far as causal sequence and even temporal sequence. I already admit I am wrong, yet, I can't justify in my mind the ability to ignore God's Immanence and Omniscience, if indeed they are ignored within the two orders of thought— Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism. To me, they are at best, thought experiments or mental exercises, but more likely, brain games, with conclusions that ignore the method of arriving at those conclusions, that may even lead us to trust human thought as valid in and of itself, in its descriptions of the infinite divine. I would also welcome anyone else to correct me here.

What need for salvation have non-sinners?

 

[makesends]

What need for salvation have non-sinners?

You seem to want to imply something here that I don't see.

 

[Josheb]

You seem to want to imply something here that I don't see.

Much of the conversation circles the unstated premise temporal sequences exist in eternity, and I do not read anyone proving that premise. Supralapsarianism (which is the stated subject of this op) is generally defined as "God chose some people for salvation before creating the world and allowing the fall of man" (Google AI), or "God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others" (Theopedia). Notice the Theopedia definition does not mention salvation. GotQuestions, on the other hand, explains supralapsarianism as a doctrine predicated on some logical order of divine decree...

1. God decreed to create human beings,
2. God decreed to permit the fall,
3. God decreed to provide salvation sufficient to all, and
4. God decreed to choose some to receive this salvation.

Again, not using the word "salvation," and assuming a temporal sequence of events in extra-temporal eternity with an all-knowing God. Suppose, for example, we were to interrupt God at a moment in eternity between #1 and #2, and ask God the question I asked? Prior to the fall..... prior to God permitting the fall there was no need for salvation! The moment God decides to permit the fall He is then dependent upon His decision and the matter of salvation becomes one of necessity - otherwise His decision to permit the fall is a decision to lose EVERYONE He will create. Furthermore, if He hadn't permitted the fall there would be no need for anyone to be saved making the matter of salvation superfluous to #1, His decree to provide sufficiency and efficiency. In other words, do we have a God who paints Himself into corners like that?

I do not.

The problem, as I see it, is that folks (both theologians and common-man contemplators) make the mistake of thinking the fall and redemption are relevant to God's purpose and plan creating creation.

What need of salvation have those who have never sinned? None!

Does that mean they have no other need for Christ? No, it does not, for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and no one (sinner or non-sinner) can come to the Father but by him. Salvation is not a contingency plan. What God ordained He ordained irrelevant of before and after the fall and thinking that was relevant is where both supras and infras make their mistake. It's an understandable mistake given the temporal Newtonian mindset of the 16th-18th century theologian, but a mistake, nonetheless. Bavinck is more on the right track, rejecting both on the premise of a more holistic divine ordaining, imo.

 

[makesends]

Much of the conversation circles the unstated premise temporal sequences exist in eternity, and I do not read anyone proving that premise. Supralapsarianism (which is the stated subject of this op) is generally defined as "God chose some people for salvation before creating the world and allowing the fall of man" (Google AI), or "God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others" (Theopedia). Notice the Theopedia definition does not mention salvation. GotQuestions, on the other hand, explains supralapsarianism as a doctrine predicated on some logical order of divine decree...

1. God decreed to create human beings,
2. God decreed to permit the fall,
3. God decreed to provide salvation sufficient to all, and
4. God decreed to choose some to receive this salvation.

Again, not using the word "salvation," and assuming a temporal sequence of events in extra-temporal eternity with an all-knowing God. Suppose, for example, we were to interrupt God at a moment in eternity between #1 and #2, and ask God the question I asked? Prior to the fall..... prior to God permitting the fall there was no need for salvation! The moment God decides to permit the fall He is then dependent upon His decision and the matter of salvation becomes one of necessity - otherwise His decision to permit the fall is a decision to lose EVERYONE He will create. Furthermore, if He hadn't permitted the fall there would be no need for anyone to be saved making the matter of salvation superfluous to #1, His decree to provide sufficiency and efficiency. In other words, do we have a God who paints Himself into corners like that?

I do not.

Certainly not!

The problem, as I see it, is that folks (both theologians and common-man contemplators) make the mistake of thinking the fall and redemption are relevant to God's purpose and plan creating creation.

What need of salvation have those who have never sinned? None!

These two statements sound contradictory, but I'm thinking I understand how not, in your thinking.

I think God's purpose and plan creating the end result has everything to do with the ontology of at least the corporate members of Christ, but also the ontology of the individual members — (if 'at that point' ontology is even an applicable principle concerning the individual saved, as though a different being all his own.) I say that the fall and redemption are part and parcel of the personality, if not the personhood, of the members of the Body of Christ. They are the difference between the glorified human Elect and pre-fall Adam. But then, I also say that there was no other way for God to make every individual precisely as he planned for that individual's place in Eternity. This is how he decreed it, and this is how he did it —both in grand themes and in every smallest detail— and there was no other way for the end result to be made with the precise character or qualities God had in mind concerning the individual and the corporate end.

Does that mean they have no other need for Christ? No, it does not, for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and no one (sinner or non-sinner) can come to the Father but by him. Salvation is not a contingency plan. What God ordained He ordained irrelevant of before and after the fall and thinking that was relevant is where both supras and infras make their mistake. It's an understandable mistake given the temporal Newtonian mindset of the 16th-18th century theologian, but a mistake, nonetheless. Bavinck is more on the right track, rejecting both on the premise of a more holistic divine ordaining, imo.

Now look here!! I invite you to correct me, and instead you make my point better than *I* do !!!

 

[Dave]

I just finished reading 'Dabney's solution to the lapsarian debate'. Basically the same. It's more elegant in it's writing, which would probably be more preferable to you guys. I'm more barbaric, but I get the gist of it. Makesends, you'll probably like this.

Dabney’s Solution to the Lapsarian Debate

This is worth quoting in detail. I’m very intrigued by Dabney’s particular understanding of divine simplicity, as he and Hodge were both very critical of the more Thomistic definition. …

wedgewords.wordpress.com

 

[Dave]

BTW, I just posted those thoughts from Hodge for a foundation to work from. I don't think that Hodge is still alive. I really don't know too much about him. I've heard people quote him to make a point. Maybe the point was what not to think. I don't know. I just posted it. To be agreed, or disagreed. That's up to you guys. I'm not affiliated in theological thought. I would stand with Dabney, though.

I always picture the OT Scribes and Pharisees having debates like this. I often wonder how Jesus would destroy their thoughts, probably in one sentence. I wish I knew what that one sentence was.

Dave

 

[fastfredy0]

Much of the conversation circles the unstated premise temporal sequences exist in eternity

... that's deep
... in eternity where nothing changes as there is no creation or space .... yet God has an eternal plan to create a temporal being in a temporal environment where God create rules of 'cause and effect' that will take place as facilitated by the creation of time. Within this environment there is created now a system to substantiate the existence of Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism or whatever. In this environment man must accumulate knowledge and formulate/test hypotheses, often based on cause and effect per the rules set by the Almighty. We assume God doesn't change the rules save for the odd miracle to keep us humble.
In a similar fashion ... in God nothing corresponding to observation, comparison, generalization, deduction, processes of reasoning, intuition, exists; yet, God has created in men these methods by which men pass from one step to another, or the contemplation or conjecture of suppositions or theories by which we account for facts such as Supralapsarianism.

My head hurts ... I'm going to contemplate something more at my level ... how many sides there are on a coin. The eternal God has always known the answer even before facilitating the creation of a coin, I will have to figure it out and see if I concur.

*end of rambling*

 

[makesends]

... that's deep
... in eternity where nothing changes as there is no creation or space .... yet God has an eternal plan to create a temporal being in a temporal environment where God create rules of 'cause and effect' that will take place as facilitated by the creation of time. Within this environment there is created now a system to substantiate the existence of Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism or whatever. In this environment man must accumulate knowledge and formulate/test hypotheses, often based on cause and effect per the rules set by the Almighty. We assume God doesn't change the rules save for the odd miracle to keep us humble.
In a similar fashion ... in God nothing corresponding to observation, comparison, generalization, deduction, processes of reasoning, intuition, exists; yet, God has created in men these methods by which men pass from one step to another, or the contemplation or conjecture of suppositions or theories by which we account for facts such as Supralapsarianism.

My head hurts ... I'm going to contemplate something more at my level ... how many sides there are on a coin. The eternal God has always known the answer even before facilitating the creation of a coin, I will have to figure it out and see if I concur.

*end of rambling*

Consider the poor atheist, who must admit he knows diddly about what he must claim comes into being for no reason, and is upheld by mere ontology, and has no firm structure by which to look beyond the material universe. He must attribute substance to HIS OWN notions and words, poor fella! We, at least, have a first cause, with intent, who also upholds fact itself by the power of his say-so.

 

[atpollard]

My head hurts ... I'm going to contemplate something more at my level ... how many sides there are on a coin.

Three, I think. Heads, tales and the edge.

 

[atpollard]

I object to ALL Lapsarianism … cause it makes my head hurt.
But “SUPRA” is correct ‘cause God doesn’t have a PLAN B (or as Corrie Ten Boom says “God does as He pleases and He does it right well!”)

 

[fastfredy0]

Consider the poor atheist, who must admit he knows diddly about what he must claim comes into being for no reason, and is upheld by mere ontology, and has no firm structure by which to look beyond the material universe. He must attribute substance to HIS OWN notions and words, poor fella! We, at least, have a first cause, with intent, who also upholds fact itself by the power of his say-so.

I doubt most atheists think that deeply if at all. If they ponder such things they probably rely on theories like the Big Bang Theory and assume the bright scientists are better equipped to answer such questions.

 

[makesends]

BTW, I just posted those thoughts from Hodge for a foundation to work from. I don't think that Hodge is still alive. I really don't know too much about him. I've heard people quote him to make a point. Maybe the point was what not to think. I don't know. I just posted it. To be agreed, or disagreed. That's up to you guys. I'm not affiliated in theological thought. I would stand with Dabney, though.

I always picture the OT Scribes and Pharisees having debates like this. I often wonder how Jesus would destroy their thoughts, probably in one sentence. I wish I knew what that one sentence was.

Dave

The problem was, Jesus was always right. And one problem he didn't seem to have, but we do, is, "the more the words, the less the meaning".