Objections To the Supralapsarian

[Josheb]

Please identify and quote the theological source material which shows that your claim here applies to the supralapsarian view.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

I should not have to be asked that question because the nature of lapsarianism is inherently couched in a purported order of decree (not to be confused with the ordo salutis) and, therefore, a passage of time.

As my posts have shown...

Your posts "show" no such thing. What they show is that some Reformed theologians think, not all of them. That argument is an appeal to authority (other than scripture) and, therefore, fallacious. Some Reformed thinkers, such as the already mentioned Bavinck (who is just as Reformed as Vos), took a different approach. Besides, I would not consider Vos mainstream in Reformed thought given his view on Pauline eschatology/soteriology.

These two clauses appear to contradict each other. I doubt that was your intent. Please explain.

Then I encourage you to re-read it as often as it takes to correctly understand it. Here's a hint: Does eternity have a beginning?


.

 

[Josheb]

As yet another example, consider the following quote from Vos in his Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1 – Theology Proper (all emphases mine):

​

The question in the first place is not whether there is a temporal sequence in God's decrees. With scripture, everyone Reformed confesses the absolute eternity of God's being. It is an eternity elevated above all temporal duration, in which a thousand years are as yesterday when it has passed and as a watch in the night (Psa 90:4).​

Blessedly, I do not get my understanding of God from Dogmatics of men. Someone recently observed how little scripture was cited throughout this thread. We should all, imo, be embarrassed about that. It is, in fact, very common for the Reformed "leaders" of this forum to cite extra-biblical sources rather than scripture. Theologian A say "X," and Theologian B says "Y" and, therefore, that is why "X" and "Y" are true is how many an apologetic in this forum goes. I have read Vos, and I happen to personally like Vos, but one of the reasons I like Vos is because he is often different within Reformed thinking. Whether I like him, and/or agree with him, though, is immaterial because his veracity is not dependent upon my acceptance of his position. His veracity is dependent upon the consistency his positions have with well-rendered scripture.

He can, therefore, claim the question is not whether there is a temporal sequence in God's degrees or not, but the simple fact of the history of lapsarianism is that a temporal sequence is inherently implied, and often stated. He accomplishes nothing with the claim that is not true. It brings into question his understanding of supra/infralapsarianism if he, like Bavinck, doesn't question the enter paradigm. If Vos confess the absolute eternity of God's being, then he must also confess there isn't a moment when God has to think and then decide what to do next. It is those two premises that contradict! His appeal to Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3 is a misuse of scripture and anyone who correctly understands the context of those two verses instantly knows Vos has made a mistake. Perhaps he was being rhetorical. If not, then the misuse becomes abuse.

So you do not get to quote Vos to me.

If you want to prove a lapsarian position (I do not care which you choose) then use scripture. Do not give me extra-biblical sources in a logically fallacious appeal to authority and then try to tell me you know the truth and I do not (not that I think you, @DialecticSkeptic, would personally do such a thing. I am speaking bluntly to the lurker who thinks that is sound methodology).

Take an observation from the Ligonier link I posted in my prior post. Mr Cooper states the following,

"Just to be clear, this isn’t a question about the order that things happened in time; it’s a question of what order these things were logically decided upon in God’s mind."​

We can easily imagine he has read his Vos . The problem with that statement, unblessedly, is unstated. It's a presuppositional problem. I, not knowing Cooper or his thought processes, wonder if he did that unwittingly or knowingly. The problem is he has assumed the necessity of "logical decision" in God's mind when the truth is no one has a clue what God knows or what He decided and if we are going to think logically about what happened in eternity then we first discard all our anthropomorphizations . Before you think to comment or inquire of me about that statement, first read through my posts because I've already addressed that matter(at least in part). Do not ask me questions I have already answered. Cooper (and Vos) would have us believe there is not temporal order, not time, in eternity but, having denied temporal order, he imposes upon God a logical order of decision making that cannot happen sequentially without time. If he (or Vos) are going to appeal to eternity (which is the correct position) then he must stay consistent with the conditions of eternity and God's existence thereof. He must avoid any hint of God not knowing something, not knowing anything at any time, because He hadn't yet decided it.

It doesn't take a theologian to understand that.

Yet many theologians have missed it.

So do not rely on theologians over scripture.... even Reformed ones .

 

[Josheb]

This is interesting. I agree with you. The implication is that one should read scripture and come to one's own conclusions and verify what one reads from others.
The practical problem is that few people are capable of reading scripture and organizing all it thoughts on so many topics into a comprehensive, accurate archive.
I don't have a full proof solution. We all are deceived by others to some degree and all lack to various extents, the capability to understand all theological concepts perfectly.

I appreciate that but I believe everyone is capable of reading and understanding scripture, at least to the degree and for the purpose God has for them doing so. Those of us here who like theology may not be the majority but that does not preclude common ability. The whole point of revealing revelation is that it be known and understood and then applied wisely. Successes and failures on our part fathoming the infinite word of God is reliant on others, especially those who've walked before us the paths we are now on. We learn from their knowledge and wisdom and some of what we learn is their mistakes. The history of Christianity is, in fact, a history of correcting human errors reading God's revelation . There'd have been no Reformation without that condition.

 

[fastfredy0]

IMO

I believe everyone is capable of reading and understanding scripture, at least to the degree and for the purpose God has for them doing so.

I agree. God determines the degree to which a man understands scripture correctly.

God is in control. God determines if we get doctrine correct.

• John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will [future tense] guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
• 2 Cor. 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned
• Luke 12:12 For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour and moment what [you] ought to say.
• 2 Timothy 3:7 [unbelievers] always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
• Psalm 119:33 Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your statutes, And I will [steadfastly] observe it to the end. 34 Give me understanding [a teachable heart and the ability to learn], that I may keep Your law; And observe it with all my heart

yada, yada

 

[Josheb]

IMO

I agree. God determines the degree to which a man understands scripture correctly.

Yes, that is true but that was not my main point. My point was that anyone can understand scripture. However, just because scripture can be correctly understood does not mean it is correctly understood. The Bible is very much a history of Jewish misreading. I vigorously argue Dispensational Premillennialism is entirely due to a decidedly misguided reading of scripture. We can say God determines who understands what, but we must be careful not to lay all understanding, nor all misunderstanding solely on God. On the positive side of that equation many correctly understand things you or I may not have yet attained because that is in God's purpose for us, but that does not preclude our God-giving faculties from studying and obtaining more than the minimum divine standard . On the other side of that dichotomy is sin. While it is true God proactively prevents understanding in some cases, He is content to let sin do what sin does and further its corruption.

We don't much find lapsarians discussing that reality, though.

God is in control. God determines if we get doctrine correct.

• John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will [future tense] guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
• 2 Cor. 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned
• Luke 12:12 For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour and moment what [you] ought to say.
• 2 Timothy 3:7 [unbelievers] always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
• Psalm 119:33 Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your statutes, And I will [steadfastly] observe it to the end. 34 Give me understanding [a teachable heart and the ability to learn], that I may keep Your law; And observe it with all my heart

yada, yada

Yes, but this thread is about objections to supralapsarianism and a few of us have observed there are problems with lapsarianism in general, not just one side or the other. It would, therefore, appear to be the entire lapsarian paradigm is of human invention and the debate is based entirely on something f a red herring. I am exaggerating, but it's kind of like debating whether God decided whether or not His Son is striped or polka-dotted. The only correct answer to that inquiry is, "Neither."

Did God decide to save some people before He created the world and allow sin, or did He make that decision after He decided to decree or permit the fall?

Neither.

God created billions of people with the intent of transforming some, but not all, and the occurrence of sin was not considered at all in that will and purpose. ALL of the people God created were going to sin. ALL of the people He would, in time, transform ALL came from the same population, the population of sinners. God did not decide to save some and condemn others; the creatures themselves condemned themselves and from that condemned population God, in His eternal infinite wisdom chose some solely by grace to be transformed BUT that choice is not a function of time (or event). God ordained all things from eternity. Period. Therefore, when we speak of "before" or "after" we have stepped out of eternity, stepped out of the paradigm in which divine providence exists, stepped out of the conditions of eternity and are incorrectly imposing temporal conditions on eternity. When we do that under the auspices of logic we further err by anthropomorphizing God.

God does not have to think anything through logically. He is never asking Himself, "What is the next logical thing to ordain?" I mean no disrespect of anyone's views, but that premise is just dumb. Humans need to think and reason. Every single comment the finite creature might ever make, every single inquiry we might ask, is all already known by the Creator; both the comment/inquiry and the answer. All of it known before anything was asked, before any creature who could ask was created, before any of the constituent elements of the creature's creation was spoken into existence.

From the perspective of eternity, there was/is/will never be God asking Himself "Okay, what will I decide to do next?" as if there was any moment, He did not already know His own mind. The fall is irrelevant to omniscience.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Part 1​

I have been asserting and emphasizing since the start of this thread that the supralapsarian view is a logical ordering of God's eternal decree, not a chronological or temporal ordering. And I have provided several quotes from Reformed theologians who have emphasized the same point. This was not a fallacious appeal to authority—a laughable accusation—but a demonstration that I'm not inventing a new or ahistorical argument. The point that I am making has been made for centuries.

As Richard Phillips explained in his article for The Gospel Coalition, "[These views] do not concern the temporal order of God's saving acts in history, but only the logical order and relationship of God's respective eternal decrees. The issue concerns not the order in which they happened but the causal and logical relationship in the mind of God as he decreed them in eternity, to the extent that this can be discerned from scripture."

But people like Josheb and some others here continue to simply hand-wave this point away and insist that the supralapsarian view really is a temporal ordering—because they say so, the lack of evidence implies. (Well, they say both views do this, but the supralapsarian view is the subject of this thread.) Josheb claims that the supralapsarian view presupposes "a condition that [he does] not believe exists in eternity: time." He continues (link):

[The supralapsarian view assumes] there is a sequence of decisions, a temporal order to the decisions God made ... Since [supra]lapsarianism is based upon the existence of time and causality in eternity, it errs. ... [Supra]lapsarianism assumes there is a point of time, a sequence of thoughts, decisions, and actions on God's part, ...
​

Since the quotes from the Reformed theologians I have provided deny this bald assertion, I asked Josheb to "identify and quote the theological source material which shows that [his] claim here applies to the supralapsarian view." Notwithstanding his opinion, which he makes quite eloquently if rather forcefully, what is the evidence that supports it? Is there any theological material informing this notion, or is it the product of his own contemplations?

In response, he provided four links. Ironically, three of them supported my claim and the fourth one didn't provide evidence for either side of this debate. At this point, all of the evidence supports one side of this debate and not the other. That has to be at least interesting, if not compelling. Let's take a look at his four links.

1. Ligonier Ministries. In this article, Barry Cooper writes (all emphases mine),

Just to be clear, this isn't a question about the order that things happened in time; it’s a question of what order these things were logically decided upon in God’s mind. ... [P]eople holding these two positions ... both accept the biblical truth that God decreed all his redemptive acts before he ever created the world and before the fall ever happened. But logically, what came first in God's mind? The decree of election and reprobation, or the decree to create the world and permit the fall?
​

2. Theopedia. This article clearly states (all emphases mine),

Supralapsarianism suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded his decree to permit Adam's fall ... This view is most often contrasted with infralapsarianism ... which suggests that God's decree to permit the fall logically preceded his decree of election.
​

3. The Highway. In this article, Loraine Boettner carefully explains (emphasis mine; however, the whole thing makes my point),

It is also true that there are some things here which cannot be put into the time mould, that these events are not in the divine mind as they are in ours—by a succession of acts, one after another—but that by one single act God has at once ordained all these things. In the divine mind, the plan is a unit, each part of which is designed with reference to a state of facts which God intended should result from the other parts. All of the decrees are eternal. They have a logical, but not a chronological, relationship.
​

4. Got Questions. This article did not provide evidence for either side of this debate. Consider the following:

[The focus of infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism] is sequence—the order in which God determined things to happen. In what order did God create humanity, allow the fall, elect some to salvation, and provide salvation for humanity? Ultimately, these are issues that we are incapable of fully grasping. It does not truly matter what order God decreed what to occur. What truly matters is that God created humanity, humanity sinned, and God has provided salvation through Jesus Christ. ... [Infralapsarianism] puts God's decrees in the following order ... [Supralapsarianism] puts God's decrees in the following order ...
​

Nowhere in the article is it ever specified whether this ordering was logical or temporal, therefore it does not support either side of the debate.

Again, my posts and quoted material from Reformed theologians have clearly shown that "the supralapsarian view explicitly denies a temporal order in God's eternal decree." Josheb flatly denies that, for some reason—"Your posts 'show' no such thing," he said—but his denial cannot change what these quotes have said, including the first three above articles from his own links! His denial cannot change the fact that Boettner, for example, so clearly said that "these events are not in the divine mind as they are in ours—by a succession of acts, one after another. ... They have a logical, but not a chronological, relationship."

Case closed, honestly.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Part 2​

That argument is an appeal to authority (other than scripture) and, therefore, fallacious.

An appeal to authority is not fallacious when that authority is qualified in the relevant field and speaking within his expertise, and there is general agreement with his view among other qualified experts in a field (i.e., he is not a cherry-picked minority voice). A consensus can be observed, even among theologians who reject the supralapsarian view, that it presents a logical ordering of God's eternal decree, not a chronological or temporal ordering—including the sources to which Josheb linked.

At any rate, I have certainly not said, "Theologian A says X, therefore X is true." What I have essentially said is, "Theologians throughout the centuries have said X, and here is a sampling of them." In other words, my argument is not presenting anything new or ahistorical.

Other than Josheb and certain others here in these forums, where can we find someone arguing that a logical ordering is a temporal ordering? That, ironically, is a new and ahistorical position.

I would not consider Vos mainstream in Reformed thought ...

Thank you for sharing that autobiographical but ultimately irrelevant detail.

Then I encourage you to re-read it as often as it takes to correctly understand it.

You are unwilling to explain your own statements? Okay.

The simple fact of the history of lapsarianism is that a temporal sequence is inherently implied, and often stated.

Sir, where are the quotes from cited material showing that a temporal sequence is "often stated"?

[Vos] accomplishes nothing with the claim that is not true. It brings into question his understanding of supra/infralapsarianism if he, like Bavinck, doesn't question the enter paradigm.

Thank you for exposing your strong bias.

So, you do not get to quote Vos to me.

I will let the tone of your comment speak for itself.

If you want to prove a lapsarian position ...

If you think that's what I've been doing or want to do, then you haven't been paying attention.

We can easily imagine [Cooper] has read his Vos.

What you can imagine, easily or otherwise, is simply not relevant.

Do not ask me questions I have already answered.

Again, that tone speaks loud and clear. (And an argument can be made that it violates the Rules & Guidelines.)

That being said, it is entirely possible that I may ask you questions which you've already answered. Why? Because in large threads like this one, a person might not have the time or inclination to read through every single post in the thread. People ask me questions I've already answered, too. And sometimes I can't be bothered to write out my answer again, so do you know what I do? I quote myself—copy and paste. Sometimes with a link to where I said it, if needed or requested.

Cooper (and Vos) would have us believe there is not temporal order, not time, in eternity. But, having denied temporal order, he imposes upon God a logical order of decision-making that cannot happen sequentially without time.

That is the category error you keep reasserting, that logical priority entails temporal priority. Since the number 1 is logically prior to the number 2 (cf. the Peano axioms), you would have us believe that 1 existed before 2 in time. But that is nonsense, for numbers are abstract entities that exist atemporally. The number 1 is logically prior to 2, but it is not temporally prior.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Yes.

What do you think of that? My bad. Let me clarify that.

What do you think of the dearth of scripture?
What do you think of long-winded marginally supported theological works being too intense? (It's been my observation you're not dumb)




There is, imo, much in a teachable spirit that is to be commended.

What do you think of the dearth of scripture?

Really cannot support a doctrine on a few verses.

What do you think of long-winded marginally supported theological works being too intense? (It's been my observation you're not dumb)

The more words and lack of Scripture in a teaching concerns me. My belief is the author is pushing their bias on what they believe without proper Scriptural proofs. Large words that I do not know and have to look up will throw me off my understanding of what the author is trying to convey. On the flip side, I get to learn new words I have never known.

There is, imo, much in a teachable spirit that is to be commended.

When the Lord saved me some years ago, I prayed that He would show me His truth. I still pray that way today. Of course no man is fallible.

It is the reason I like this site, I can learn from others and sift it through Scripture. Always wanting to learn.

There is not much folly and foolishness on this site as I have encountered on others and I respect that.

 

[Josheb]

Part 1
I have been asserting and emphasizing since the start of this thread that the supralapsarian view is a logical ordering of God's eternal decree, not a chronological or temporal ordering. And I have provided several quotes from Reformed theologians who have emphasized the same point.

I understand the assertions and the emphases. I suspect the rest of the readers do, too. The case for supralapsarianism is faulty.

But people like Josheb and some others here continue to simply hand-wave this point away...

That is incorrect (and violates the tos).

The problem between what the supralapsarian claims and reality is very much akin to the problem within Dispensationalism in which DPers constantly claim to believe in one sole means of salvation that is by grace through faith but the reality of their larger theology is that the believe in two methods of salvation, one by which anyone can come to Jesus by grace through faith and the other by which Jews come to salvation by works - the works of securing the land, building a temple, reconstituting the Levitical priesthood, and reinstituting the Mosaic Law and the system of animal sacrifices. Any apologetic defending DPism will dismiss the problem of soteriology by asserting salvation by grace through faith. The problem is those apologists completely ignore the inescapable logical necessities of their own theology. Those here defending supralapsarianism have replicated their failure.

Supralapsarians can claim their lapsarian viewpoint is not temporal all they want but they fail to address the reality of their own viewpoint. No one denies the claim of "logical ordering." That is not the problem. Quoting extra-biblical sources does not address the problem or prove the suprlapsarian case. It proves only that a select number of Reformed theologians subscribe to that point of view. It is critically important that Sproul, Boettner, and the rest not be used as an appeal to authority. Those men do not hold authority over anyone in this discussion, their knowledge, wisdom, and experience does not make their words the definitive position on the subject. The posters here are all quite capable. We can all reason through scripture as well as any of those men. We can also reason through any case presented without appeals to extra-biblical sources, especially when they are employed fallaciously.

Nowhere in the article is it ever specified whether this ordering was logical or temporal, therefore it does not support either side of the debate.

That was not the point of references.

Again, my posts and quoted material from Reformed theologians have clearly shown that "the supralapsarian view explicitly denies a temporal order in God's eternal decree." Josheb flatly denies that, for some reason...

Straw man.

I do not deny that is the claim of supralapsarianism. What I deny is the truth of that claim. Five hundred gazillion people, many of them with letters after their name, can call the tail a lamb a leg and then claim lambs logically all have five legs, but that argument is faulty, the claims have no validity, and there is no truth found in that conclusion. The claim does not make it so. I have explained how and why the problem exists and Post #146 ignored all of that content.

Case closed, honestly.

Then I shall expect no more from you and continue the discussion without further content from you. Your case has been made as you saw fit, and you've claimed the case is closed. I will, therefore, expect you to conduct yourself accordingly. The rest of us can discuss the implications of lapsarianism and the degree to which (or lack thereof) supralapsarianism is really about a "logical order" void of any temporal order. Even rhetorically speaking it is irrational to present a faulty affirmative case, ignore the relevant content of the dissent, and then claim the case is closed.

 

[Josheb]

And the key problem with this criticism from you and Josheb (i.e., temporal ordering) just keeps popping up.

That is not the "key problem" at all.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nevermind. Sorry.

 

[Josheb]

Really cannot support a doctrine on a few verses.

Exactly.

Anyone can use scripture selectively and form a case that proves their position (contrary to what hole scripture teaches). Similarly, anyone can quote from their selected favorite theologians, or "experts," and claim that is the way everyone should think and believe.

The more words and lack of Scripture in a teaching concerns me.

As well it should.

However, most of us participating in this forum know our Bible fairly well. It is, therefore, no uncommon for someone to reason through the scriptures efficiently without mentioning every reference with the expectation at least some of what they're posting is recognized as founded in scripture. I do that myself, depending on who it is with whom I am trading posts. If asked, I can usually back up what I say with scripture well rendered.

My belief is the author is pushing their bias on what they believe without proper Scriptural proofs. Large words that I do not know and have to look up will throw me off my understanding of what the author is trying to convey. On the flip side, I get to learn new words I have never known.

The author cited in the op? Yep.

When the Lord saved me some years ago, I prayed that He would show me His truth. I still pray that way today. Of course no man is fallible.

Not only is no man infallible (aside from Jesus ) but appeals to personal anecdotal experience is a sign of fallibility .

It is the reason I like this site, I can learn from others and sift it through Scripture. Always wanting to learn.

Me too. I do not come to teach. I come to learn, to have my views tested, to improve and refine my thinking, my points of view, and my fellowship with those in the body of Christ (such as is possible in cyberspace).

There is not much folly and foolishness on this site as I have encountered on others and I respect that.

LOL!

The Zionists say otherwise .


That being said, I, personally, think lapsarianism is folly and foolishness.... but I understand why the concern exists as a matter of intellectual exercise and I can discuss the topic with manners and respect and provide patient and sincere opportunity for everyone to make the case for their perspective.

 

[Arial]

Not only is no man infallible (aside from Jesus ) but appeals to personal anecdotal experience is a sign of fallibility .

It can be but it is not always. If it being used to arrive at a doctrine apart from the Bible---then it is fallible. If it is being used as an experienced illustration of a doctrinal position that is sound, then it is neither fallible or infallible. It is just an anecdote. If the anecdote is used as support for Scripture then it is fallacious support.

 

[Josheb]

It can be but it is not always. If it being used to arrive at a doctrine apart from the Bible---then it is fallible. If it is being used as an experienced illustration of a doctrinal position that is sound, then it is neither fallible or infallible. It is just an anecdote. If the anecdote is used as support for Scripture then it is fallacious support.

Yep. One point of clarification: it is possible for someone to arrive at a correct position without scripture because all truths are God's truths. However, it is right and good for Christians to seek the foundation in God's word for any truth and ask for it when absent in the presentation of others. I can, for example, prove the necessity of salvation by faith with logic alone (assuming a few very basic presuppositions are agreed upon) but I don't expect any Christian to take my word for it or bow to the logic alone.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

IMO

I agree. God determines the degree to which a man understands scripture correctly.

God is in control. God determines if we get doctrine correct.

• John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will [future tense] guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
• 2 Cor. 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned
• Luke 12:12 For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour and moment what [you] ought to say.
• 2 Timothy 3:7 [unbelievers] always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
• Psalm 119:33 Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your statutes, And I will [steadfastly] observe it to the end. 34 Give me understanding [a teachable heart and the ability to learn], that I may keep Your law; And observe it with all my heart

yada, yada

God determines the degree to which a man understands scripture correctly.

I never thought about it this way.

Perhaps this explains why my mind will wander when reading Scripture or maybe that is my fallen flesh, or both.

Very interesting.

 

[Josheb]

Part 2​

An appeal to authority is not fallacious when that authority is qualified in the relevant field and speaking within his expertise, and there is general agreement with his view among other qualified experts in a field (i.e., he is not a cherry-picked minority voice).

That is incorrect. That is observably and demonstrably incorrect. For every monergist theologian you or I might cite as proof of monergism, the synergist can cite a synergist theologian who is just as intelligent, just as educated, just as experienced, and considered by that ilk to be just as authoritative. The result when that occurs is always nothing more than competing lists of men (or women) with letters after their name. It is meaningless. That is why I do not quote from sources other than the Bible (unless an individual and his particular viewpoint is the topic of discussion), reason from that source, and invite others to do likewise.

A consensus can be observed..

Argumentum ad populum.

, even among theologians who reject the supralapsarian view, that it presents a logical ordering of God's eternal decree, not a chronological or temporal ordering—including the sources to which Josheb linked.

Please do not continue to misrepresent me or my posts. You are a staff member, and I expect you to set an example accordingly. Non-supralapsarians cite supralapsarians as authorities in supralapsarianism, not lapsarianism as a whole or non-lapsarian positions.

Boettner, for example, is generally considered to speak with some authority on various Reformed perspectives. The same is true of Ladd and/or Hoekema. In point of fact, I can find these guys cited by a wide array of authors from completely disparate and irreconcilable points of view. If we had those three seated together and were discussing eschatology we'd find little consensus. All soteriologically Reformed, but not in complete agreement.

But the main point is being missed. It isn't the expertise of the individual cited that wrecks the thread. It is the use of that individual's purported expertise as definitive with an intent to persuade everyone that is erroneous. The fallacy of the appeal to authority occurs anytime something is asserted as true or correct because the authority says "X" and it is then argued "X" must therefore be true and everyone should accept the position as true for everyone. That is what has happened throughout this thread. The claims of those quoted were not critically examined and found to be valid or veracious. They were simply asserted as the way we should all believe.

Bow down to these guys is the essence of that argument.

At any rate, I have certainly not said, "Theologian A says X, therefore X is true." What I have essentially said is, "Theologians throughout the centuries have said X, and here is a sampling of them." In other words, my argument is not presenting anything new or ahistorical.

That is disingenuous. What you have not said is: because theologians throughout the centuries have said X..... the dissent should accept my position. That is a textbook case of fallacious appeal to authority because the theologians you selected were speaking/writing from/about only one point of view. Had a more thorough sampling of theologians throughout the centuries been cited a lot of diversity would be evident.

And this should not need to be explained. The supralapsarian/infralapsarian debate persists because of the lack of authoritative and definitive consensus among all.

Other than Josheb and certain others here in these forums, where can we find someone arguing that a logical ordering is a temporal ordering? That, ironically, is a new and ahistorical position.

I have already answered that question.

You are unwilling to explain your own statements? Okay.

I have already answered and addressed every concern you've broached. None of them are being addressed. YOU are the one creating the roadblock. There's a pile of content sitting in the thread awaiting your response and this is the second post in which you've chosen to make things about the posters and not the posts.

Sir, where are the quotes from cited material showing that a temporal sequence is "often stated"?

Please do not ask me questions already answered.

That being said, it is entirely possible that I may ask you questions which you've already answered. Why? Because in large threads like this one, a person might not have the time or inclination to read through every single post in the thread......

Not my problem. The moment you chose to engage my position it was incumbent upon you to read and correctly understand it, if for no other reason than to avoid making the kind of errors currently being made.

For the record: I have asked you a question that is sitting idle in this thread unanswered. You've not shown parity. As it stands you're demanding I answer all your inquiries (all of which were addressed before they were asked) and refused to answer those put to you. I have other questions, but I have refrained from asking them until I see some evidence you will actually collaborate with parity. The opportunity for us to establish common ground, and build consensus from there, has availed itself and been ignored.

That is the category error you keep reasserting, that logical priority entails temporal priority. Since the number 1 is logically prior to the number 2 (cf. the Peano axioms), you would have us believe that 1 existed before 2 in time. But that is nonsense, for numbers are abstract entities that exist atemporally. The number 1 is logically prior to 2, but it is not temporally prior.

That is incorrect. It's a huge mess. If you think through your own words, you will find the flaws. A simple inquiry might help: Is there a sequence to any "logical order"?









For those who do not already know: Peano's Axioms have to do with mathematical logic as it pertains to natural numbers (not theological constructs in eternity and the supposed logical order therein). Logically speaking, an axiom is nothing more than a statement considered to be self-evidently (or arbitrary but agreed upon) true and, thereby, a rational basis or starting point for further reasoning.


.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

For reasons that I trust are evident to the readers, and pursuant to the Rules & Guidelines (especially 5.3), I am discontinuing the discussion with Josheb. Notwithstanding the number of Rules that his post violated, the discussion with him is simply counter-productive.

That being said, I feel compelled to address the one accusation he made that was the most egregious and unwarranted:

Please do not continue to misrepresent me or my posts. You are a staff member, and I expect you to set an example accordingly.

I did not misrepresent either Josheb or his posts (see R&G 2.2).

I had said (link), "A consensus can be observed, even among theologians who reject the supralapsarian view, that it presents a logical ordering of God's eternal decree, not a chronological or temporal ordering—including the sources to which Josheb linked."

As can be seen in Part 1 of my response to him, three of the four links he provided demonstrated the consensus of which I spoke; they likewise affirmed that the supralapsarian view presents a logical order, not a temporal one. Boettner, in fact, could not have said it any clearer: "They have a logical, but not a chronological, relationship."

My claim stands supported, not only by the sources I cited but also three of the four sources Josheb cited.