AS I UNDERSTAND the descriptions of both sides, they both seem (to me) to fail to take into view God's larger or end purposes in creating.
I wonder if there is a misunderstanding here, because the supralapsarian view places strong emphasis on God's ultimate goal in creation, which I did my best to articulate. In fact, it aligns with what you said: "From the beginning, God had in mind the very end, and it is for that end that he created." Yes, exactly. And this ultimate goal shapes every aspect of his eternal decree (e.g., election) as a means serving that end. Since I have already identified what I believe to be the ultimate purpose of creation in the supralapsarian view—twice, in fact—I don't think repeating it would add much at this point. But I would be happy to clarify if it really would be helpful.
To dissect the pieces, starting variously with the fall or with redemption, and considering what followed or led that, [is a failure] to see the whole ball of wax as what God made from the beginning.
I don't know if I fully understand your criticism. It sounds like you're suggesting that, once we apprehend God's ultimate purpose in creation, any attempt to explore the other aspects of his eternal decree and their relationship to that end and each other somehow minimizes that end. It is possible that I've misunderstood your meaning, but that's the impression I got from your statement—and I just don't get how it follows.
I must be misunderstanding something. Do clarify, please.
I don't mean to scorn here; I say it like this to reorient the mind in its quest for truth: Who cares whether the decreed fall produced the decreed redemption, [or whether] the decreed redemption causing the decreed fall?
Well... I care, for one—as do many theologians, scholars, students, and pastors. A lot of ink has been spilled exploring these questions and issues, which indicates to me that people care about this.
Why do they care? Perhaps for no other reason than they want to understand. Or maybe they love exploring these things because it informs their understanding of who God is, this majestic, sovereign God they worship. Those are two reasons why I care, anyhow. And this exploration shifted me from a man-centered eschatology to a Christ-centered one, so it seems worthwhile. (This might answer the question
you asked,
Hazelelponi.)
Supralapsarianism does use the fact of Christ's place in eternity (as God's purpose for creation and as the end of our faith), as decreed from the beginning, in its arguments against infralapsarianism. But, again, that seems to be a "helper fact"—a reference, an argument that the infralapsarians are looking at the sequence wrong—and not the argument itself, that the sequence is only for our mental gymnastics and not how God sees things, not for God.
And this just adds to the impression I got. Here, too, it seems like you think exploring anything other than the ultimate purpose of his eternal decree is just "mental gymnastics."
As a side note: Of course none of this is how God sees things. That should go without saying. Nobody has any earthly (or heavenly) idea whatsoever how God sees things. But that is not what this is about anyway. Rather, it is about who God is. If either idea A or B conflict with or contradict God's self-revelation, then one or the other (or both) is ripe for the trash bin. What does an infralapsarian
ordo salutis say about God? How about a supralapsarian one? It seems to me a worthwhile pursuit, especially if it produces a deeper and fruitful study of God's word, as it has for many. Personally, it's a hunger and thirst for the things of God that fuels these questions for me.
I agree completely. I could even say that that is my whole point. The "logical sequence," then, seems superfluous to me.
I don't see how it could be superfluous, since ascertaining an ultimate purpose for God's eternal decree would not tell us anything about the particulars of the
pactum salutis, or the
ordo salutis for that matter. We know from scripture that there are particulars, and we even find hints at the logical ordering of them (e.g., Rom 8:29-30), so it seems to me worth the deep dive into scripture and theology proper to explore and understand what the questions are (and what they are not) and how we might answer them. As I said, these things inform our understanding of who God is.
Consider as an example the following excerpt from John Murray's
Redemption Accomplished and Applied, where he shows the reader how scripture reveals a logical order (which repudiates the dismissive claim by
prism that it's all mere speculation):
When Paul says, "Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called" (Rom. 8:30), it is obvious that the author of predestination is the author of the call. And in the preceding verse the author of predestination is distinguished from the person who is called "his Son"—"whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son." Only of the Father can it be said that he predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son for the simple reason that only in respect of the Father is the Son the Son. Likewise in 1 Corinthians 1:9, when Paul says, "God is faithful, by whom ye were called into the fellowship of his Son," the same inference holds because the person who calls is distinguished from the person into whose fellowship the called are ushered, ...
Exploring the logical order of these things involves digging deep into scripture, which reveals to us who God is and the intratrinitarian participation in salvation.
Right, and good for [supralapsarians]. I wish they would let that larger purpose be the end of the conversation, instead of support for how they order decrees behind/after/toward/whatever it. ... [I agree with
prism that the arguments] by lapsarians seem superfluous in their intent to lend order to this decree over that decree, ...
Brother, there is only one eternal decree, not multiple. I know this discussion can get heated, but let's be careful not to misrepresent one another's views, whether carelessly or intentionally.
The paraphrase was not a statement of what I believe, nor how I see things, but only a paraphrase of what
prism said.
I know. I was fully aware of that when I replied to you. But I also knew that you and him shared the same sentiment about these lapsarian distinctives, so it was on point to seek a response from you.
I'm having a little trouble understanding why you are into me about this. I'm agreed that there is a logical ordering.
That is news to me, sorry. I was under the impression that you rejected the idea of there being a logical ordering in God's eternal decree, given such statements from you as, "The logical sequence, then, seems to me superfluous," and, "I don't get why it needs to be ordered one way or the other."
I think that I need some clarification here, since I am becoming confused about where you stand: If you agree that there is a logical ordering to God's eternal decree, then how is it superfluous?
[So, then] claim that Christ our redemption is logically first, then the fall logically follows.
I mean, did I not say almost exactly that? "Christ's role as redeemer is ... the centerpiece of God's eternal purpose. ... 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."
How does the one position definitely deny the other?
Herein lies the key distinction between the two views:
Supralapsarian: The election and reprobation of man precedes (logically) the fall of man.
Infralapsarian: The election and reprobation of man follows (logically) the fall of man.
I consider the two to be compatible. But I despise the notion, "allow", instead of 'cause'.
learn.ligonier.org
