Objections To the Supralapsarian

[makesends]

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.

I think the supralapsarian position can be used to imply, or even draw from, God's ultimate goal, but does not mention it, nor even mention God's view in creating it, except in argument —again, as I have seen it expressed. I will concede, as I said before, that if I had to choose one, I think it would be supra, because its arguments must include that overarching concern.

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 have tried to do it above in this post, and in the post above [this one, lol. No, I don't write for Dr Seuss]

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.

Granted

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.)

Well said.

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."

Well, no. I think the deciding which logically follows/precedes the other —election first, or the fall first— neither one represent God's "reasoning". I don't mean to disparage it, but it doesn't matter to me, as long as there is agreement as to the purpose, use and meaning of God's intention and decree that there be the fall and that there be redemption. They sound to me like 2 different ways of proposing the same thing, and that, as a 'subset', within the larger 'set', of God's purpose for creating. They represent OUR view, and not God's.

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.

Good enough. No problem there.

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.

I do not even begin to deny the particulars. If anything, I'm the one here who pushes Immanence to ridiculous ends. God is within all to accomplish all for his own sake. I could go on and on here.

And that the one thing necessitates the other, I do not dispute. I particularly deny that the decree of the fall was for the bare sake of the fall, just as the decree of reprobation is not for the bare purpose of the reprobation. To put it crassly, they are collateral damage, and not an end in themselves, nor even a part of the end, in the same way as are redemption and salvation.

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.

No denial there on my part. I could go on and on. I don't remember if I mentioned the ordo salutis to @Hazelelponi 's question. Necessarily the faith follows the indwelling follows election. But the tenor of the lapsarianism debate, (again, as I see it), were it applied to the ordo salutis, would not be which comes first, but which logically follows by need of the first, vs, by cause of the first.

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.

I had no intention to misrepresent anything nor, I hope, was I careless: I don't even think I meant to represent YOUR view, but only the two positions as I understand them.

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.

Yes and no. @prism thinks it is ridiculous, er, "nonsensical". I think the arguments —if I am right in saying that they attempt to deal with the sequence of decree, and not with the sequence of logical necessity of the fall as to redemption (or vice versa)— are superfluous.

 

[makesends]

NOTE this follows the above response to @DialecticSkeptic, pasted here because the whole thing was over the allowable limit, in length.

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?

Hopefully what I've written above this suffices, or the statement I made directly above this one (in the bottom of post #81). But maybe this will help. There is a logical ordering to what God has decreed. And I could order it thus —that redemption is only possible because of the fall. Or, I could order it thus, that the fall was necessary in order to have redemption. Which was decreed first? I don't know. Or does the debate concern which needed to be decreed first? I still don't know. I think that part of it is superfluous.

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."

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.​

So, not, "the decree of election and reprobation precedes the decree of the fall of man", etc.? Other definitions differ.

But, as I have said twice, I think, now: If I had to choose one, it would be Supralapsarianism, but only by the importance and permanence of election, in its place in the larger decree of God.

 

[makesends]

That's because they are narrowly examining only the ordo salutis. As my responses should have indicated, there is more to supralapsarianism, for example, than just the ordo salutis.

ok

 

[Mr GLee]

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

As an outcome how would the doctrine of annihilation effect Supralapsarian and infralapsarianism?

 

[Arial]

Agreed 100 %

Do you remember hearing years ago of a trend among liberal churches, to tell people, basically something along the lines of, "What do you think God is? What is God to you? Then that is what he is." I haven't heard it put that way, lately, maybe because it is couched in other terms, or maybe because people have become inured to it.

No, never heard that one. I have however never been in a non-Reformed Bible study where they actually studied the Bible. Instead they would take a scripture or set of scriptures and go around the group answering the question, "What does this mean to you?" instead of "What does this mean?"

 

[makesends]

No, never heard that one. I have however never been in a non-Reformed Bible study where they actually studied the Bible. Instead they would take a scripture or set of scriptures and go around the group answering the question, "What does this mean to you?" instead of "What does this mean?"

Yeah. Same way of thinking, and that is still going on.

 

[Hazelelponi]

don't remember if I mentioned the ordo salutis to @Hazelelponi 's question.

I do already know that, it was mentioned in this thread and I looked it up, but without the Latin it was something I already knew.

 

[makesends]

As an outcome how would the doctrine of annihilation effect Supralapsarian and infralapsarianism?

The end is the same, as for the purposes of God. He did not create in order to annihilate, nor in order to condemn. He created in order to have a people with him, and he be their God. That glory was the end of his intention. The reprobate are not included in that, but are at best, 'what it took to create (accomplish) that end'.

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
But no matter how I put that, he keeps saying the Uncaused cause (God, obviously —on that we agree), had a first cause.

Ok, my bad. Please expand on what you are saying here, then. (my emphasis below).
Josheb said:
the finish point of the Uncaused Cause's first cause

How about this: God, who is The Uncaused Cause caused creation to be created. His causing the creation of creation was the first cause of creation's creation. The Uncaused Cause..... caused the first cause by which creation was created. The cause that caused the creation of creation, that first cause, was the Uncaused Cause's first cause creating creation, not the first cause of His own creation (God is not created). The Uncaused Cause's first cause was creating creation.

• God is self-existing. He has no causation to His existence.
• God, who is uncaused, caused creation to be created.
• Creating creation was God's first causal act........ the Uncaused Cause's first cause was causing creation.

At no time have I ever anywhere have I ever stated God had a cause. I have unequivocally and uniformly stated He us uncaused.

 

[Josheb]

Semantics. I think you and I agree here. The terminology, not so much. We are NOT trying to say that there is any moment when God hadn't (past tense) decided something.

If the problem is that you don't like the implications of what I say, or the problem is that you don't like what I am saying, maybe you should ask for better expression. We don't usually actually disagree on the facts.

The post was not about you. We are discussing lapsarianism. As I believe I have already stated, both sides make the error of imposing temporal conditions on eternity. By suggesting there is an order or sequence to God's decisions (which both viewpoints rely upon) they compromise the doctrine of divine omniscience and aseity.

It has absolutely nothing to do with you, personally.

 

[makesends]

We are discussing lapsarianism. As I believe I have already stated, both sides make the error of imposing temporal conditions on eternity. By suggesting there is an order or sequence to God's decisions (which both viewpoints rely upon) they compromise the doctrine of divine omniscience and aseity.

Well put.

I have heard the two sides represented variously: as the order in which they occurred; as the order of logical dependence; as the logical order by importance; and as (in effect) the order of God's intention, this last of which is stated as order of God's decree of the one versus his decree of the other. On each of those, there are two views, but what gets argued in the end is almost as bad as the freewill debate —eg. the logical order of importance gets pitted against the order of God's decree.

To me, in the end, as I have looked these things up, the definitions of the two are about the order of decree, which to me is superfluous talk, as you have shown, though you did not say they are superfluous.

 

[makesends]

How about this: God, who is The Uncaused Cause caused creation to be created. His causing the creation of creation was the first cause of creation's creation.

Sounds redundant.

The Uncaused Cause..... caused the first cause by which creation was created.

ditto —redundant

The cause that caused the creation of creation, that first cause, was the Uncaused Cause's first cause creating creation, not the first cause of His own creation (God is not created). The Uncaused Cause's first cause was creating creation.

All redundant, as far as I can tell. "His name is called Bruce, but his name IS Bruce, since he is Bruce"

• God is self-existing. He has no causation to His existence.

Of course

• God, who is uncaused, caused creation to be created.

Redundant, I say

• Creating creation was God's first causal act........ the Uncaused Cause's first cause was causing creation.

Redundant, I still say

At no time have I ever anywhere have I ever stated God had a cause. I have unequivocally and uniformly stated He us uncaused.

If he caused a cause, that second cause is not first cause. You have interjected an "in-between" cause where there is none. HE is the first cause. Simplicity. God's causation is not a separate cause from God, except, perhaps, in our mental constructs. Anyhow—that is how I see it.

But I'm afraid we are running off topic. Specially when we agree concerning the two lapsarianisms.

 

[Josheb]

Well put.

Thank you.

Sounds redundant.

It is redundant. Intentionally so. The chronic misunderstanding was redundant, and tiresome. I repeated what I've written many times in various wordings to make and emphasize the point so it might be correctly understood and prevent further redundant misunderstanding.

But I'm afraid we are running off topic. Specially when we agree concerning the two lapsarianisms.

We are not running off topic. God's aseity (His inherent lack of ontological causality and the eternal nature of His creative agency) is necessarily relevant to lapsarianism and the belief held by both sides of that debate wherein it is incorrectly imagined there is a temporal order to eternal ordinance.

We are, however, belaboring a matter that was made many posts ago and, thereby, being unnecessarily redundant .

But we object more particularly to the Supralapsarian scheme.

I object equally to both the Supra- and Infra- lapsarian povs.

I object to ALL Lapsarianism … cause it makes my head hurt.

Specially when we agree concerning the two lapsarianisms.

I'd prefer to say we have opened the discussion up to a larger view of lapsarianism that deserved address. The op expresses objections to supralapsarianism but says nothing of any alternative pov. It is, in a sense, a thesis without any antithesis. If I protest beejambernockialism but neglect the presentation of a (scripturally) valid alternative, then I have accomplished little. Critics abound. Impeccable affirmative positions are comparatively few (and usually deserve at least a mention)....

...if for no other reason than to prevent head hurts .

 

[makesends]

Thank you.

It is redundant. Intentionally so. The chronic misunderstanding was redundant, and tiresome. I repeated what I've written many times in various wordings to make and emphasize the point so it might be correctly understood and prevent further redundant misunderstanding.

We are not running off topic. God's aseity (His inherent lack of ontological causality and the eternal nature of His creative agency) is necessarily relevant to lapsarianism and the belief held by both sides of that debate wherein it is incorrectly imagined there is a temporal order to eternal ordinance.

We are, however, belaboring a matter that was made many posts ago and, thereby, being unnecessarily redundant .

I object equally to both the Supra- and Infra- lapsarian povs.



I'd prefer to say we have opened the discussion up to a larger view of lapsarianism that deserved address. The op expresses objections to supralapsarianism but says nothing of any alternative pov. It is, in a sense, and theses without any antithesis. If I protest beejamberniackialism but neglect the presentation of a (scripturally) valid alternative, then I have accomplished little. Critics abound. Impeccable affirmative positions are comparatively few (and usually deserve at least mention)....

...if for no other reason than to prevent head hurts .

Ok. Then, the thread so far in summary, ignoring several off-topic rabbit trails:

OP By @Dave: Dabney tries to knock down Supralapsarianism

@makesends responds that both positions (as being arrangements of the order of God's decree of the Fall and God's decree of Redemption, and not of what is decreed, but of the decrees themselves) seem to him to be without warrant.

@DialecticSkeptic introduces eschatology preceding soteriology, as support for Supra-, but leaves off any mention of the two positions being about God's decree of this over God's decree of that. He speaks of Supralapsarianism as being about God's larger intention—the reason for, and end of, creation. (My words there—not his)

@Dave introduces Hodge's objections to Supralapsarianism, but I can't tell for sure whether Hodge is arguing for the supposed contents of God's decrees, or to the decrees themselves. (If I had to guess, I'd say, the content.)

@Josheb protests against the logical errors within what Dave posted. To wit: 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).

@Josheb presents logical evidences that both positions neglect God's larger scheme.

@fastfredy0 thought too deeply for me again, which, somehow, made HIS head hurt.

@atpollard 's head hurts too

@prism thinks what seems the same as Makes does, but characterizing the two positions (without reference to whether they are about the decrees themselves vs the contents of the decrees), as 'nonsensical' because God dwells in eternity.

@DialecticSkeptic presses the salient point concerning the fact that the two positions are about logical order and not chronological order.

@Josheb @fastfredy0 @makesends beat each other about the back and the head in affirmation of mutual understandings, their proofs, relevance and superiority.

@Dave seems to agree with the 3 above, but then, HIS headache hasn't subsided yet. Maybe he's just trying to keep his blood pressure down.

@ElectedbyHim introduces Boettner's treatment on the two positions, in which, Boettner says,"The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the fall", but the two "views" he presents are, without mention of decree, except to say that God "purposed to" do these things within the two orders of events: Supra- 1)Election (and reprobation), 2)Creation, 3)the Fall, 4)Redemption, 5)Regeneration. Infra- (1) Creation; (2) The Fall; (3) Election (and reprobation); (4) Redemption; and (5) Regeneration

@atpollard explains that both views ignore the POV of infinite God.

@weall go 'round a few times about what we actually meant.

@DialecticSkeptic re-iterates that Supralapsarianism does include God's overall, larger, scheme.

@makesends tries to get a solid consensus of what the two positions are, as to whether they are about arranging God's decrees, or about arranging the contents of God's decrees.

@Josheb reaffirms the validity of protests concerning the limited nature of the two positions, as opposed to the unlimited decree of
God (my words—not his.).

NEXT?

 

[Josheb]

Ok. Then, the thread so far in summary, ignoring several off-topic rabbit trails:

OP By @Dave: Dabney tries to knock down Supralapsarianism

@makesends responds that both positions (as being arrangements of the order of God's decree of the Fall and God's decree of Redemption, and not of what is decreed, but of the decrees themselves) seem to him to be without warrant.

@DialecticSkeptic introduces eschatology preceding soteriology, as support for Supra-, but leaves off any mention of the two positions being about God's decree of this over God's decree of that. He speaks of Supralapsarianism as being about God's larger intention—the reason for, and end of, creation. (My words there—not his)

@Dave introduces Hodge's objections to Supralapsarianism, but I can't tell for sure whether Hodge is arguing for the supposed contents of God's decrees, or to the decrees themselves. (If I had to guess, I'd say, the content.)

@Josheb protests against the logical errors within what Dave posted. To wit: 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).

@Josheb presents logical evidences that both positions neglect God's larger scheme.

@fastfredy0 thought too deeply for me again, which, somehow, made HIS head hurt.

@atpollard 's head hurts too

@prism thinks what seems the same as Makes does, but characterizing the two positions (without reference to whether they are about the decrees themselves vs the contents of the decrees), as 'nonsensical' because God dwells in eternity.

@DialecticSkeptic presses the salient point concerning the fact that the two positions are about logical order and not chronological order.

@Josheb @fastfredy0 @makesends beat each other about the back and the head in affirmation of mutual understandings, their proofs, relevance and superiority.

@Dave seems to agree with the 3 above, but then, HIS headache hasn't subsided yet. Maybe he's just trying to keep his blood pressure down.

@ElectedbyHim introduces Boettner's treatment on the two positions, in which, Boettner says,"The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the fall", but the two "views" he presents are, without mention of decree, except to say that God "purposed to" do these things within the two orders of events: Supra- 1)Election (and reprobation), 2)Creation, 3)the Fall, 4)Redemption, 5)Regeneration. Infra- (1) Creation; (2) The Fall; (3) Election (and reprobation); (4) Redemption; and (5) Regeneration

@atpollard explains that both views ignore the POV of infinite God.

@weall go 'round a few times about what we actually meant.

@DialecticSkeptic re-iterates that Supralapsarianism does include God's overall, larger, scheme.

@makesends tries to get a solid consensus of what the two positions are, as to whether they are about arranging God's decrees, or about arranging the contents of God's decrees.

@Josheb reaffirms the validity of protests concerning the limited nature of the two positions, as opposed to the unlimited decree of
God (my words—not his.).

NEXT?

Minor clarification: Supralapsarianism predicates God's purpose on contingency. Hodge observed it. I agree. God's purpose is not based on contingencies. It might cover them preemptively, but that is a product of divine sovereignty and power, not on His looking down any timeline and making adjustments to cover the bases.

Let me also amend an earlier statement because I said the op hadn't offered alternatives but that is incorrect. Hodge and Bavinck both espouse non-lapsarian points of view, and @Dave did subsequently include that content.

 

[Mr GLee]

The end is the same, as for the purposes of God. He did not create in order to annihilate, nor in order to condemn. He created in order to have a people with him, and he be their God. That glory was the end of his intention. The reprobate are not included in that, but are at best, 'what it took to create (accomplish) that end'.

I meant the doctrine of annihilation. Like never born the first time (no witness)

How would Supralapsarian effect those who believe life does not end when a person takes their last breath and continue suffering, no end.
Some sort of limbo.

 

[prism]

@makesends tries to get a solid consensus of what the two positions are, as to whether they are about arranging God's decrees, or about arranging the contents of God's decrees.

Gee, that's like CNN trying to give a nonbiased report on President Trump.

 

[makesends]

Mino clarification: Supralapsarianism predicates God's purpose on contingency. Hodge observed it. I agree. God's purpose is not based on contingencies. It might cover them preemptively, but that is a product of divine sovereignty and power, not on His looking down any timeline and making adjustments to cover the bases.

Would you also say that "God...cover[ing] [contingencies] preemptively", does, or does not, imply that they did not descend logically and intentionally from his causation and from the things necessary to his grander purposes?

Does the WCF "freedom of contingencies" —against which freedom he does do violence, per WCF— constitute any lack of pervasiveness of cause-and-effect upon contingencies? To me, what you said there necessarily means that 'contingencies' —whatever that means— are not free in the sense of uncaused or random, but only (at best) that they might seem so to us.

I don't think this is off-topic to go here.

Let me also amend an earlier statement because I said the op hadn't offered alternatives but that is incorrect. Hodge and Bavinck both espouse non-lapsarian points of view, and @Dave did subsequently include that content.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I think the supralapsarian position can be used to imply, or even draw from, God's ultimate goal, but it does not mention it, nor even mention God's view in creating it, except in argument—again, as I have seen it expressed.

I find it curious that you are so insistent and emphatic about a subject to which you've had limited exposure, while opposing the clarifications of those who have studied it in depth.

It seems, to me, that your exposure to these views has been limited to the context of the ordo salutis. That would explain why you think the supralapsarian view merely "implies" an ultimate goal, never mentioning it, for indeed the ordo deals with the application of redemption to man. That is a specific, more narrow scope. Despite this, you are oddly resistant to any suggestion that the supralapsarian view extends beyond the ordo to other theological areas, including Christology—even though it does, and has for centuries, even long before the term supralapsarian was coined.

Irenaeus of Lyons, for example, believed that Christ was not simply a remedy for sin but the fulfillment of God's original purpose for creation. That goes back to the second century. Athanasius, too, believed that the Son, as the original agent in creation and in redemption, "conjoins protology and soteriology and, ultimately, eschatology." That is the fourth century.

Although not explicitly a supralapsarian, the systematic theology of Bavinck expressed strong tendencies in that direction, painting Christ as the centerpiece of creation: "The incarnation is ... the supreme revelation of God and the goal toward which all things move." Robert Letham admits in his systematic theology, "Supralapsarianism seeks to prioritize the ultimate purpose of God." It is difficult to imagine a clearer statement. Louis Berkhof said that supralapsarianism "clearly exhibits the rational order which exists between the ultimate end and the intermediate means. Therefore, the supralapsarians can, while the infralapsarians cannot, give a specific answer to the question why God decreed to create the world and to permit the fall."

Reaching far beyond the ordo salutis, the supralapsarian view holds that God's ultimate purpose for creation is eschatological consummation—the full realization of God's kingdom, the glorification of the redeemed, and the restoration of all things—with the entirety of God's covenant dealings with mankind, including the ordo itself, serving this ultimate end. Even the goal of our own salvation is eschatological conformity to the glorified Christ.

I would recommend Edwin van Driel, Incarnation Anyway: Arguments for Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford University Press, 2008), whose supralapsarian argument is based on a post-Barthian eschatological consummation. See also John V. Fesko, Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1–3 with the Christ of Eschatology (Fearn: Mentor, 2007).

 

[Josheb]

Would you also say that "God...cover[ing] [contingencies] preemptively", does, or does not, imply that they did not descend logically and intentionally from his causation and from the things necessary to his grander purposes?

No, maybe, yes. That's not a question that can be answered definitively, imo. In our many exchanges on causality I have asserted the premise that creation is not linear, or a single line of cause-and-effect but something more of a matrix in which God's original act that caused creation was dynamic in that it 1) had multiple effects and 2) created secondary causes, each with their multitude of effects. From the divine perspective in eternity, or from a mathematical perspective in temporal creation we might be able to "track" the matrix had we humans the sufficient intellectual capacity to figure it all out (or God explained it to us). There is, certainly, a logic to it, but we cannot grasp its details. too much information.

One of the reasons I say this is because humans are volitionally dynamic creatures, so dynamic and interactive that a pile of seemingly deterministic influences could be observed to bear down on any individual's moment of decision and that person willfully choose the exact opposite. God fathom's the contrary choice but we'd never grasp the causality of it because the individual making the choice might not know him/herself. Studies in behavior modification proved very deterministic except for two factors: 1) the intelligence of the one being manipulated and 2) their ignorance of the manipulation. Really smart people catch on to what's being done to them and subconsciously refuse to cooperate. Sometimes they are aware, but quite often they aren't. Either way they rebel, and the study ended up either compromised or reporting new data that wasn't planned or the hypothesized outcome. The same thing happens with the less intelligent. The moment a person realizes they are being manipulated they rebel and the many antitheses of program become their territory of choice. Behaviorally and psychologically, this informs the Christian understanding of sin quite a bit, except for the fact sin is much more enslaving than God.

I started out as a strict behaviorist as an undergrad. I had a job teaching independent living skills and behavioral management to adults with developmental disabilities (IQs between 45 and 70, or 1-2 standard deviations below the norm). The stark manipulation bothered me, ethically (this was before ethics caught up to practices in the profession). So, after discussing this with my peers, bosses, and professors, I took a different tack: explain the program and get the individual's consent. Initial progress was slower but long-term progress improved, especially where rewards were well correlated to the individual's values and motives (where possible). The basic rule is fairly simple: behavior that is rewarded is much more likely to reoccur.

Ephesians 6:7-8
With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

That is, admittedly, an odd way of looking at the truths of scripture but it works from beginning to end. One problem is that on the other end of the spectrum crazy can drive just as much slavery or contrariness. A clinical narcissist can be relied upon to be self-referential and exploitive. That is the nature of that enslavement (spiritually speaking) but within that stronghold there is a cunningness that that is malevolently creative (especially with the malignant forms of narcissism and other pathologies).

Very thick textbooks filled with empirical data have been written on these matters.

As it pertains to lapsarianism, God knows it all as a function of eternal omniscience..... but it is of no particular regard regarding His creation of creation because His divine purpose covered all possibilities/eventualities without needing to consider them. The mistake in lapsarianism is that it is thought God must make sequential or ordered decisions to cover the "problem" of sin. Sin is a problem for us, but not for God. He knows Romans 3:23 is an eternal reality before it becomes a temporal reality. That's why supralapsarianism is closer to the truth but still not quite correct. In clinical research vernacular, the sample called the "elect" were chosen from the population that is entirely dead in sin (simply because there are no non-sinners in creation after Genesis 3:6. God decided who He'd save in eternity and eternity precedes, encompasses and endures long after time's creation and end.