Objections To the Supralapsarian

[DialecticSkeptic]

No. There is no "logical" order or "chronological" order with GOD ([who is] omni-everything and extra-temporal).

That is a conclusion without its accompanying argument.

It is "nonsensical" to speak of God, who exists outside of the created dimension of time, as being limited by temporal properties like “which came before and which came after.” Do we seriously ponder where in space God is? Then why sweat when in time God was influenced by.

I agree with you. So, please pay closer attention to what I actually said: "It is logically before or after, not chronologically." Temporal sequences are chronologically ordered, and I denied a chronological priority because they don't apply to God who transcends the created universe. Logical priority does not imply temporal sequence but rather an order of dependence.

Did [an infinite] God really need to sit down and ponder out the logical details of his [purpose and] plan, perhaps working through several drafts to get it just right? No, that is silly. ... It is over-anthropomorphizing to ascribe an order of working out thoughts, like a human mind, to the mind of God.

Silly, yes. It is also temporally sequential, which I've denied from the start.

I need people to respond to what I've actually said. Try quoting me, if that will help.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Sin, I say, is not endemic to the nature of the end product God had in mind when the whole story is told.

Indeed. Sin is a means to the eschatological goal. It is not itself a goal. That, I believe, is the crucial distinction.

 

[makesends]

Second, you have shifted your posture. Initially, you claimed that a logical order is "nonsensical" when applied to a God who dwells in eternity. Now, you simply say that you're "not buying it." The former is not self-evidently true, so I would need to see the argument that led you to that conclusion. The latter, however, is merely an autobiographical detail—your personal skepticism—which does nothing to my position or argument.

Not to side with @prism on this, though we have much the same view concerning lapsarianism —that is, that they fail to take into view God's larger, or, end, purposes in creating, but what he said was,
prism said:
Seems to me, decreeing things 'before' or 'after' anything is nonsensical in terms of a God who dwells in eternity, logical order notwithstanding. He didn't exactly say that it was nonsensical when applied to a God who dwells in eternity. If I may paraphrase: "It makes little sense to consider that God who dwells outside of time, should decree according to a logical 'before' or 'after' (as in causal sequence) of these greater themes."

That God does decree the things is not at issue, and certainly he would not decree Redemption without a decree of Sin. The question is whether the arrangement we tend to make of these things is of any particular use, since, it would seem, the one decree does not follow another, but that the whole matter being one decree would seem more apt. It is WE who separate and prioritize for the sake of our poor minds, and not God.



However, I am not convinced at this point that I have a full understanding of the two positions, but only shortened versions. There may be more to them than the question of the fall and so on. I have already heard other things being involved that one of the other side supposedly denies, things which I would not deny, so, I will read on.

 

[makesends]

​

(Boettner) : Among those who call themselves Calvinists there has been some difference of opinion as to the order of events in the Divine plan. The question here is, When the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallen? Were the objects of these decrees contemplated as members of a sinful, corrupt mass, or were they contemplated merely as men whom God would create? According to the infralapsarian view the order of events was as follows: God proposed (1) to create; (2) to permit the fall; (3) to elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the Devil and the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins; (4) to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and (5) to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was purchased by Christ. According to the supralapsarian view the order of events was: (1) to elect some creatable men (that is, men who were to be created) to life and to condemn others to destruction; (2) to create; (3) to permit the fall; (4) to send Christ to redeem the elect; and (5) to send the Holy Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect. The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the fall.

Here Boettner calls supra- and infra-lapsarian "[different opinions] as to the order of events in the Divine plan." To me, the term, "events" may imply passage of time, and, not that God does not decree events—after all, he decrees all things (ordains all things whatsoever comes to pass)— but to me, at least, passage of time is irrelevant in considering notions of decreeing one thing logically (causally) before another.

Anyway, I understood the difference to be the logical sequence in "how we consider one thing logically necessitating the other", or something along those lines. It is, "which thing came first in the mind of God" which to me is reality, (though still a bogus consideration), rather than, "how must we see these things". I say it is a bogus consideration because I don't think either thing came first in the mind of God. He is not like us.

(Boettner continues) One of the leading motives in the supralapsarian scheme is to emphasize the idea of discrimination and to push this idea into the whole of God’s dealings with men. We believe, however, that supralapsarianism over-emphasizes this idea. In the very nature of the case this idea cannot be consistently carried out, e. g., in creation, and especially in the fall. It was not merely some of the members of the human race who were objects of the decree to create, but all mankind, and that with the same nature. And it was not merely some men, but the entire race, which was permitted to fall. Supralapsarianism goes to as great an extreme on the one side as does universalism on the other. Only the infralapsarian scheme is self-consistent or consistent with other facts.

Now this I hadn't read before. If THE PURPOSE, (or a major one, anyway) of supra- is to emphasize God's particularity in his dealings and purpose for the human race, then supra- (or whichever does it most accurately) may be a worthy pursuit.

It may be revealing that Boettner finds it expedient to say that the human race "was permitted to fall". Was this not the scheme from the beginning? —"permitted" and not "intended"? Did this happen by accident? I thought both sides argued that it was indeed the intent, the question being when it was intended —but I say it was intended from the beginning. "Permitted" softens considerably the severity of the purpose and purity of God (in my opinion).

(Boettner continues) In regard to this difference Dr. Warfield writes: “The mere putting of the question seems to carry its answer with it. For the actual dealing with men which is in question, is, with respect to both classes alike, those who are elected and those who are passed by, conditioned on sin; we cannot speak of salvation any more than of reprobation without positing sin. Sin is necessarily precedent in thought, not indeed to the abstract idea of discrimination, but to the concrete instance of discrimination which is in question, a discrimination with regard to a destiny which involves either salvation or punishment. There must be sin in contemplation to ground a decree of salvation, as truly as a decree of punishment. We cannot speak of a decree discriminating between men with reference to salvation and punishment, therefore, without positing the contemplation of men as sinners as its logical prius.”1

Here, Boettner, (via Warfield), posits a description of the two views being about logical sequence as being a matter of man's consideration and not as logical fact of sequence. But at the beginning, he seems to consider the two views as being about fact. So which is it?


Truncated because it ran over 10000 words.

 

[makesends]

(Boettner continues) And to the same effect Dr. Charles Hodge says: “It is a clearly revealed Scriptural principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation.… He hath mercy upon one and not on another, according to His own good pleasure, because all are equally unworthy and guilty … Everywhere, as in Romans 1:24, 26, 28, reprobation is declared to be judicial, founded upon the sinfulness of its object. Otherwise it could not be a manifestation of the justice of God.”1

It is not in harmony with the Scripture ideas of God that innocent men, men who are not contemplated as sinners, should be foreordained to eternal misery and death. The decrees concerning the saved and the lost should not be looked upon as based merely on abstract sovereignty. God is truly sovereign, but this sovereignty is not exercised in an arbitrary way. Rather it is a sovereignty exercised in harmony with His other attributes, especially His justice, holiness, and wisdom. God cannot commit sin; and in that respect He is limited, although it would be more accurate to speak of His inability to commit sin as a perfection. There is, of course, mystery in connection with either system; but the supralapsarian system seems to pass beyond mystery and into contradiction.

Boettner (or is it Hodge?) is wrong, I say, in that he supposes the view he doesn't agree with considers man at any point innocent but foreordained to eternal misery and death. Is he only talking about Adam, perhaps? But it doesn't matter—the question is not one of man's status at any particular time, or in relation to any sequence of decree, but of God's decree itself. So I say it is a moot point. God planned the whole thing from the beginning.

(Boettner continues) The Scriptures are practically infralapsarian,—Christians are said to have been chosen “out of” the world, John 15:19; the potter has a right over the clay, “from the same lump,” to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor, Rom. 9:21; and the elect and the non-elect are regarded as being originally in a common state of misery. Suffering and death are uniformly represented as the wages of sin. The infralapsarian scheme naturally commends itself to our ideas of justice and mercy; and it is at least free from the Arminian objection that God simply creates some men in order to damn them. Augustine and the great majority of those who have held the doctrine of Election since that time have been and are infralapsarians,—that is, they believe that it was from the mass of fallen men that some were elected to eternal life while others were sentenced to eternal death for their sins.

I don't see how Supralapsarianism teaches any differently, but...

(Boettner continues) There is no Reformed confession which teaches the supralapsarian view; but on the other hand a considerable number do explicitly teach the infralapsarian view, which thus emerges as the typical form of Calvinism. At the present day it is probably safe to say that not more than one Calvinist in a hundred holds the supralapsarian view. We are Calvinists strongly enough, but not “high Calvinists.” By a “high Calvinist” we mean one who holds the supralapsarian view.

I've heard too many definitions of High Calvinist. Maybe some will claim it or admit to it, but I don't know any as such.

It is of course true that in either system the sovereign choice of God in election is stressed and salvation in its whole course is the work of God. Opponents usually stress the supralapsarian system since it is the one which without explanation is more likely to conflict with man’s natural feelings and impressions. 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. Yet in order for us to reason intelligently about them we must have a certain order of thought. We very naturally think of the gift of Christ in sancification and glorification as following the decrees of the creation and the fall.

So we are back to the fact that these are a question of OUR order of thought, and the assertion is made that so we must think of them, in order to consider the facts intelligently.

Reminds me of hermeneutics class in seminary. It is simple common sense, put in a series of tenets. It is a tool, perhaps, at best, and not a question of the truth of how God did it.

In regard to the teaching of the Westminster Confession, Dr. Charles Hodge makes the following comment: “Twiss, the Prolocutor of that venerable body (the Westminster Assembly), was a zealous supralapsarian; the great majority of its members, however, were on the other side. The symbols of that Assembly, while they clearly imply the infralapsarian view, were yet so framed as to avoid offence to those who adopted the supralapsarian theory. In the ‘Westminster Confession,’ it is said that God appointed the elect unto eternal life, and the rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.’ It is here taught that those whom God passes by are ‘the rest of mankind’; not the rest of ideal or possible men, but the rest of those human beings who constitute mankind, or the human race. In the second place, the passage quoted teaches that the non-elect are passed by and ordained to wrath ‘for their sin.’ This implies that they were contemplated as sinful before this foreordination to judgment. The infralapsarian view is still more obviously assumed in the answer to the 19th and 20th questions in the ‘Shorter Catechism.’ It is there taught that all mankind by the fall lost communion with God, and are under His wrath and curse, and that God out of His mere good pleasure elected some (some of those under His wrath and curse), unto everlasting life. Such has been the doctrine of the great body of Augustinians from the time of Augustine to the present day.”1

More of the same, I think. The WCF does not imply they were contemplated as sinful (nor innocent) "before" God decreed them reprobate. As far as I can tell, it was done all in one decree, no matter how we want to separate it, and the WCF says no different.