Objections To the Supralapsarian

[Josheb]

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.

Well, then, I might need the relevance explained to me.

WCF 3.1 is fairly explicit addressing this. Everything ordained was ordained in eternity (without regard to the occurrence of sin, the volitional agency of the creature, or the existence of secondary causes and their contingencies (either their predicates or their potentially temporally unanticipated consequences). Instead, those things are established by God's eternal ordaining.

I often put it this way: A god who makes action figures that do only exactly what s/he/it makes them do may well be a very powerful entity but, in comparison, that god is nowhere near as knowledgeable, sovereign, powerful, authoritative, etc. as a God who makes a dynamic creature in a dynamic creation filled with unrealized dialectic potential. I can make an action figure and make it do exactly what I want it to do. There's nothing particularly god-like about that at all.

Lapsarianism is not about the creature. It is about the Creator and the supposed premise there is an order or sequence to His decision-making prior to His creating creation and I, personally, question the validity of that foundation. Assuming a "decision tree" runs into a variety of theological and logical difficulties (as I have already broached in the preceding posts).

 

[makesends]

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.

My apologies. Lol, I get the same reaction from those I differ with about 'unguided' evolution (Darwinian).

All I have to go on is what I hear (read), and so far, what I hear does not sound logical to me, though I hear the subject argued several ways. It is not that one or the other position is less logical to me, but that the parameters of Lapsarianism (both sides) seem to not lend themselves to the facts.

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.

Well, no. I mention ordo salutis in comparison/contrast to lapsarianism. Ordo Salutis is about the way of salvation alone, not attempting to encompass, or even ostensibly to mention God's decree about anything. But (again, as far as I have seen) Lapsarianism either tries to order the decrees of the Fall and of Redemption, or it argues the details of the decrees; either way, (to me) it seems to be about the decrees.

If the ordo salutis is specifically, "this first, that next, etc", such as, "Indwelling, then Regeneration, then Faith, etc", that is all it directly deals with. We can, in arguing the logical sequence of ordo salutis, mention God's decrees, but we are still only talking about salvation, irrespective of decree or of how God thinks of it. Lapsarianism ostensibly (even endemically, (or so it seems to me, anyway)) includes the concept "decree" as part of both positions —they attempt to order the sequence of decrees, which to me is impossible for man to do, because it pretends to encompass God's way of decree, and how God arranges his thoughts. (Lol, or at least that is how my mind is putting it right now.)

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.

That's great, but that's soteriology branching out from bare ordo salutis, and not itself ordo salutis. And it is not trying to arrange the order of decrees. And if, as I suppose you mean to show, it impinges on Lapsarianism, great. So let me have a good definition of the two positions that does not include anything that ostensibly attempts to give us the order of God's thoughts.

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."

Yes, if all Lapsarianism does is to show us what is more important toward that 'end (purpose) of all things', then I can live with that; after all, it seems to me obvious, as I have said before, that the fall is only a means, and sin is a tool, but redemption is endemic to salvation—the goal. So I have no complaint there.

I do, however have a complaint if the two positions are variously (and vaguely) defined as though "the other guys are saying that God equally wanted sin as to want our salvation", or as though logically ordering by importance attempts to mean that "God thought of this first", because there is no way to say what (or even if) God thought of one thing first.

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.

Is that part of what Supralapsarianism is trying to do, or even part of the definition of Supralapsarianism? Or is that an argument FOR Supralapsarianism?

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).

I'm not trying to say that either (or both) positions are bogus. I'm trying to say that, if I understand the various definitions I have heard are correct as I understand them, they don't make sense to me. They both seem to want to display God's grand scheme of things, reduced to which logically comes first —God's decree that there be the Fall, or God's decree that there be Redemption.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
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.

Well, then, I might need the relevance explained to me.

WCF 3.1 is fairly explicit addressing this. Everything ordained was ordained in eternity (without regard to the occurrence of sin, the volitional agency of the creature, or the existence of secondary causes and their contingencies (either their predicates or their potentially temporally unanticipated consequences). Instead, those things are established by God's eternal ordaining.

My bad. Lol, I meant to say the opposite: Instead of, "...WCF "freedom of contingencies" —against which freedom he does do violence, per WCF", I meant to say, "...WCF "freedom of contingencies" —against which freedom he does [NOT] do violence, per WCF" I hope that answers your questions.

I often put it this way: A god who makes action figures that do only exactly what s/he/it makes them do may well be a very powerful entity but, in comparison, that god is nowhere near as knowledgeable, sovereign, powerful, authoritative, etc. as a God who makes a dynamic creature in a dynamic creation filled with unrealized dialectic potential. I can make an action figure and make it do exactly what I want it to do. There's nothing particularly god-like about that at all.

Yet, if I understand you correctly, from other posts, your dynamic creature, who is not an 'action figure', is not endowed with "free will" in the common sense of independence-from-causation—i.e., what we have termed, "libertarian free will". God has set in motion, whether to include his intervening or not, exactly what it takes to accomplish his end objectives in EVERY detail and particularity, and THAT includes our wills and the choices our wills make. He is that much above us.

Lapsarianism is not about the creature. It is about the Creator and the supposed premise there is an order or sequence to His decision-making prior to His creating creation and I, personally, question the validity of that foundation. Assuming a "decision tree" runs into a variety of theological and logical difficulties (as I have already broached in the preceding posts).

I agree completely —at least, as far as I understand the definitions/descriptions of the two (or more) positions. Here you say, succinctly, what I have spent many posts trying to answer @DialecticSkeptic concerning that validity. The only ordering that makes any sense to me, in the end, is what you have mentioned elsewhere —that sin (the fall) is not endemic to the end purpose of creation, the way that redemption is.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
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.

Well put. (And, lol, to add to the fun, is 3) the crossover, or interlinking of causal chains, to the extent that it is assumed by some (both physicists, philosophers and theologians) (stated roughly, here) that each fact affects all other things.

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 love this. Nicely explained. As the WCF, it seems (to me), would say it modern day: God establishes those dynamics. (LOL my mind wants to pursue that track with 100 further comments that would probably mess it all up. )

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.

Interesting. (And interesting how I can identify myself somewhere on a scale in that, at the same time as I deny being 'that way', and determine not to fall into anything resembling that even in small part.)
"The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked —who can know it?"

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.

Exactly so! I quote this for @DialecticSkeptic to read, "The mistake in lapsarianism is that it is thought God must make sequential or ordered decisions to cover the "problem" of sin". DS, Does, this explain better what I've been trying to say?

My bold in your (Josh) quote: "...His divine purpose covered all possibilities/eventualities without needing to consider them." I love that! Odd that it makes perfect sense without needing to understand how the Infinite Self-Existent God does so!

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.

I agree completely, but for any inferable notion that God selected individuals from what I call, "a pool of possibles". While the elect are no different or better in themselves, nor even of themselves more suitable for God's 'end game', they are, nevertheless, in EVERY detail, created specifically each unto/for that end. And that, from beginning, during/through processing, and in the end, is completely the work of God. The Bride of Christ is no haphazard collection of individual members.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

All I have to go on is what I hear, and so far what I hear does not sound logical to me ... It is not that one or the other position is less logical to me, but that the parameters of lapsarianism—both sides—seem to not lend themselves to the facts.

Fair enough. So, let's uncover why it doesn't sound logical to you. And let's narrow our conversation to the supralapsarian view because (a) that is the subject of the opening post anyway, (b) sticking to a single view will aid understanding, and (c) it is the only view about which I am curious, since I am leaning that way.

To begin, please identify for me these facts to which you believe the supralapsarian view fails to lend itself. And try to keep it succinct (e.g., bullet list). Since it will facilitate the conversation, but is not itself the conversation, there is no need for anyone to adopt a defensive position just yet.

The ordo salutis is about the way of salvation alone, not attempting to encompass or even ostensibly mention God's decree about anything.

EDIT: I had to change my answer to this because, in the process of consulting my resources and forming a response to you, I've had a significant change of mind about the ordo salutis. When I moved from an Arminian Baptist theology to a Calvinist one—but before I became Reformed—Wayne Grudem was a major influence on my theological development. My understanding of the ordo salutis was shaped by his systematic theology, wherein he includes election and predestination in the ordo salutis. I have spent years holding the same view—until an hour ago.

Upon consulting my Reformed theologians, including Bavinck, Vos, Murray, and Berkhof, I am now convinced that the ordo salutis is the efficacious application of the redemption wrought by Christ and, therefore, being temporal, cannot include election and predestination which belong to God's eternal decree. I find myself convinced that the ordo salutis must begin with effectual calling and be followed by regeneration and so forth, culminating in glorification. I learned this afternoon that election and predestination being included in the ordo salutis was a common but imprecise way of speaking in older Reformed theology. Modern theologians like Bavinck and Murray have clarified that election belongs to God's eternal decree, not the temporal application of salvation. I find myself convinced, now, that the pactum salutis contextualizes God's eternal decree and that the ordo salutis is the historical outworking of that decree in the lives of the elect.

I don't know, yet, whether or not this changes our conversation. I will wait to find out. The eternal decree refers to God's sovereign plan which encompasses everything that defines creation and which happens in time, including the fall of man and redemption through Christ. That being said, I still lean toward a supralapsarian Reformed theology, which obviously includes not only Christology but also soteriology, anthropology, and even divine providence and so on. "The truth inherent in supralapsarianism is that all the decrees together form a unity; that there is an ultimate goal to which all things are subordinated and serviceable; that the entrance of sin into the world did not take God by surprise but was willed by him; that creation was designed to make re-creation possible; and that in the creation of Adam things were structured with a view to Christ" (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics).

But (again, as far as I have seen) supralapsarianism either tries to order the decrees of the fall and of redemption, or it argues the details of the decrees; either way, (to me) it seems to be about the decrees.

The supralapsarian view tries to order the decrees logically, not temporally—as you likewise believe. Again, the moment we recognize that God has chosen some (this is the elect), it follows necessarily that he has not chosen others (this is the reprobate). And if the elect are redeemed in Christ, it follows necessarily that the reprobate are condemned apart from Christ. And so on. When I talk about logical ordering, this is what I am talking about (i.e., Y is the necessary precondition of X).

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.

That's great, but that's soteriology branching out from bare ordo salutis,

To say that it branches out from the ordo salutis is to deny that it's the ultimate and original purpose for creation—which is a question-begging move.

 

[fastfredy0]

Supralapsarian
Election of same --> Creation --> Total Depravity --> Definite Atonement --> Efficacious Grace --> Perserverance of Saints

 

[Carbon]

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

Dabney's: "Objections To the Supralapsarian"

Objections To the Supralapsarian.

But we object more particularly to the Supralapsarian scheme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 18: Predestination

I’m a Supralapsarian

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

This is not available on line any more without jumping through a ton of hoops. I've been looking.

Are you talking about this?

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Are you talking about this?

Excellent resource.

I do not believe I ever heard of RPM magazine, I will bookmark this one.

Thank you.

 

[makesends]

Fair enough. So, let's uncover why it doesn't sound logical to you. And let's narrow our conversation to the supralapsarian view because (a) that is the subject of the opening post anyway, (b) sticking to a single view will aid understanding, and (c) it is the only view about which I am curious, since I am leaning that way.

To begin, please identify for me these facts to which you believe the supralapsarian view fails to lend itself. And try to keep it succinct (e.g., bullet list). Since it will facilitate the conversation, but is not itself the conversation, there is no need for anyone to adopt a defensive position just yet.




EDIT: I had to change my answer to this because, in the process of consulting my resources and forming a response to you, I've had a significant change of mind about the ordo salutis. When I moved from an Arminian Baptist theology to a Calvinist one—but before I became Reformed—Wayne Grudem was a major influence on my theological development. My understanding of the ordo salutis was shaped by his systematic theology, wherein he includes election and predestination in the ordo salutis. I have spent years holding the same view—until an hour ago.

Upon consulting my Reformed theologians, including Bavinck, Vos, Murray, and Berkhof, I am now convinced that the ordo salutis is the efficacious application of the redemption wrought by Christ and, therefore, being temporal, cannot include election and predestination which belong to God's eternal decree. I find myself convinced that the ordo salutis must begin with effectual calling and be followed by regeneration and so forth, culminating in glorification. I learned this afternoon that election and predestination being included in the ordo salutis was a common but imprecise way of speaking in older Reformed theology. Modern theologians like Bavinck and Murray have clarified that election belongs to God's eternal decree, not the temporal application of salvation. I find myself convinced, now, that the pactum salutis contextualizes God's eternal decree and that the ordo salutis is the historical outworking of that decree in the lives of the elect.

I don't know, yet, whether or not this changes our conversation. I will wait to find out. The eternal decree refers to God's sovereign plan which encompasses everything that defines creation and which happens in time, including the fall of man and redemption through Christ. That being said, I still lean toward a supralapsarian Reformed theology, which obviously includes not only Christology but also soteriology, anthropology, and even divine providence and so on. "The truth inherent in supralapsarianism is that all the decrees together form a unity; that there is an ultimate goal to which all things are subordinated and serviceable; that the entrance of sin into the world did not take God by surprise but was willed by him; that creation was designed to make re-creation possible; and that in the creation of Adam things were structured with a view to Christ" (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics).




The supralapsarian view tries to order the decrees logically, not temporally—as you likewise believe. Again, the moment we recognize that God has chosen some (this is the elect), it follows necessarily that he has not chosen others (this is the reprobate). And if the elect are redeemed in Christ, it follows necessarily that the reprobate are condemned apart from Christ. And so on. When I talk about logical ordering, this is what I am talking about (i.e., Y is the necessary precondition of X).

I'm hoping that I'm just misunderstanding what lapsarianism is trying to do, but until I can see that, I don't see this going anywhere.

I'm thinking maybe it would be best to respond to this and the below, if you first read the two or three places I've tried to refer you to by, " @DialecticSkeptic " where @Josheb made my point better than I could.

I don't have any problem admitting that supra- is the better of the two, but my problem is that the two, as I understand them to be defined, attempt to tell how God thinks, and not the simple cause-effect sequence of the notions within the decreed facts of the subject to which they arrange themselves.

makesends said:

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.

That's great, but that's soteriology branching out from bare ordo salutis,

To say that it branches out from the ordo salutis is to deny that it's the ultimate and original purpose for creation—which is a question-begging move.

I thought I had said more than just that. That statement was intended to be within context. Maybe I can find it

But, whatever, no. Not as I understand the ORDO SALUTIS in and of itself. Our salvation is about the eternal end/purpose for God's creating creation, and everything about the ordo salutis —indwelling, regeneration, faith, etc, are part of the meaning of "IN HIM". But the IN HIM is not itself part of the ordo salutis theory. It may be a larger study under which Ordo Salutis falls, but it is not itself Ordo Salutis. Likewise, I think, election.

BUT, even if I am wrong there, my point is that Ordo Salutis is not attempting to organize God's decree of election, decree of redemption, decree of regenerating, decree of so on and so on until the decree of consummation. It may, if you insist, deal with all those things in a logical order, but it does not try to arrange what God thought of first, second and so on.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I'm hoping that I'm just misunderstanding what lapsarianism is trying to do, but until I can see that, I don't see this going anywhere.

I can see it going somewhere, provided you identify the facts you had mentioned. Since you referred to them, I have to assume you know what they are—otherwise, how could you say the supralapsarian view doesn't lend itself to them?

I also have to assume that you're not content with misunderstanding, that you want to understand—not necessarily accept, but at least understand. Identifying and addressing an obstacle to your understanding surely must be a good place to start.

I don't bite.

I'm thinking maybe it would be best to respond to this, and the below, if you first read the two or three places I've tried to refer you to by "DialecticSkeptic" where Josheb made my point better than I could.

Well, I am having this conversation with you, not him, so I have no idea what he has been saying. Perhaps you could reply with quoted material from him that made your point so well.

I don't have any problem admitting that supralapsarianism is the better of the two, ...

You have mentioned this multiple times now, so I am curious: Are you emphasizing it to make a particular point, or just reaffirming your stance? (If the former, please specify the point.)

... but my problem is that the two, as I understand them to be defined, attempt to tell how God thinks, and not the simple cause-effect sequence of the notions within the decreed facts of the subject to which they arrange themselves.

And where do you find supralapsarianism doing that? What is your source material that is trumping my explanations and citations? (I am asking because I want to read it, not only to find out if or how my explanations are wrong but also to understand why you struggle with this. Reading what you've read has to help.)

Our salvation is about the eternal end/purpose for God's creating creation, and everything about the ordo salutis —indwelling, regeneration, faith, etc, are part of the meaning of "IN HIM". But the IN HIM is not itself part of the ordo salutis theory. It may be a larger study under which Ordo Salutis falls, but it is not itself Ordo Salutis. Likewise, I think, election.

Wait. Isn't that literally what I just said (#105)?

My point is that the ordo salutis is not attempting to organize God's decree of election, decree of redemption, decree of regenerating, [etc.] ...

What do you mean when you say that it's "not attempting to organize"? I ask because in the next sentence you allow that it may logically order them, as if to imply that logically ordering them and organizing them are different things.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

I’m a Supralapsarian

I agree.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

I have read this whole thread twice now and also researched many theological works on the subject.

The difference between Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarian lies on the logical and not temporal order of God's decrees per a study on this.

I get it, but do not fully grasp it, if that makes any sense.

Supralapsarian emphasizes God's sovereignty and with this I am in agreeance.

The following are verses that suggest each Lapsarian doctrine and of course are debatable.

Infralapsarianism:

Emphasis on God's Mercy:

Infralapsarians often highlight scriptural verses that underscore God's mercy towards humanity in its fallen state.

Examples:

• Romans 9:15-16: "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." This verse is utilized to demonstrate God's mercy on those who are already in a state of fallenness.
• Ephesians 2:4-5: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved." This passage illustrates God's mercy towards individuals in a state of sin.

Focus on the Fallen State:

They reference passages that emphasize humanity's fallen condition as the context for God's redemptive work.

Examples:
Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."



Supralapsarianism:

Emphasis on God's Sovereignty:

Supralapsarians focus on scriptural verses that highlight God's absolute sovereignty and His eternal decree.

Examples:

• Romans 9:11-13: "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.'" This passage is frequently cited to illustrate God's unconditional election.
• Ephesians 1:4: "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love." This verse is used to show God's eternal election.

Focus on God's Eternal Decree:

They emphasize passages that discuss God's eternal plan and purpose.

Proverbs 16:4: "The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."

Thoughts on these Scriptures?

 

[Mr GLee]

How would Infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism figure into lamb of God slain. (finished work)???

The six days Christ did work.

Demonstrated to the whole world thousands of years later.

The Father the husband, Christ and Son working as one

Nothing new

Temporal things winding to the last day under the Sun.

It would seem more like "Let there be a bride" and the husband named her "Christian" Residents of the city of Christ named after her husband (Revelation 21)

 

[Josheb]

Yet, if I understand you correctly, from other posts, your dynamic creature, who is not an 'action figure', is not endowed with "free will" in the common sense of independence-from-causation—i.e., what we have termed, "libertarian free will". God has set in motion, whether to include his intervening or not, exactly what it takes to accomplish his end objectives in EVERY detail and particularity, and THAT includes our wills and the choices our wills make. He is that much above us.

I prefer the phrase "volitional agency" because no one and no thing is autonomous (free) from God and the design specs of creation (and no human is free of sin apart from Christ). We are, in fact, exceedingly limited creatures when it come to our will, but that does not preclude dynamic, interactive agency entirely.

I agree completely —at least, as far as I understand the definitions/descriptions of the two (or more) positions. Here you say, succinctly, what I have spent many posts trying to answer @DialecticSkeptic concerning that validity. The only ordering that makes any sense to me, in the end, is what you have mentioned elsewhere —that sin (the fall) is not endemic to the end purpose of creation, the way that redemption is.

I understand your position, but I do not share your position exactly as you have articulated it here. While it is true redemption is ontologically and teleologically inherent to Christ and his work, God's purpose in creating creatures in His image and finishing that work by transforming the corruptible and mortal human into an incorruptible and immortal image-bearing holy and righteous creature is not dependent on sin. Redemption is, therefore, relevant solely because humans have/do sin. I reiterate my point Jesus was coming into creation whether sin ever occurred or not. He was, in fact, already here in the form of the tree of life before Genesis 3:6. Who knows what would have happened to the person for whom it was apportioned to die once and face judgment had s/he never disobeyed God and physiologically died having eaten from the tree of life. Genesis 3:22 cannot be read to conflict with Hebrews 9:27, and we cannot say God changed His mind.

 

[Josheb]

I have read this whole thread twice now and also researched many theological works on the subject.

Was scripture researched?

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Was scripture researched?

Not in depth, so I do not know if they fully support the positions.

Scriptures were added from multiple sources on the two subjects.

As I said earlier, I get it but do not fully grasp it.

Probably more info than you wanted.

Can you offer any Scripture to support Infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism, if there are any?

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Further in my research it seems that Shedd (Dogmatic Theology) says that the tradition of the reformed is
infralapsarian/sublapsarian.

I would think it would be Supralapsarianism, but what do I know.

Is this true of the Reformed, anyone have knowledge of this?

 

[Carbon]

Not in depth, so I do not know if they fully support the positions.

Scriptures were added from multiple sources on the two subjects.

As I said earlier, I get it but do not fully grasp it.

Probably more info than you wanted.

Can you offer any Scripture to support Infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism, if there are any?

Berkhof explains it this way.
The doctrine of predestination has not always been presented in exactly the same form. Especially since the days of the Reformation, two different concepts of it gradually emerged, which were designated during the Arminian controversy as infra- and supralapsarianism. Already existing differences were more sharply defined and more strongly accentuated as the results of the theological disputes of the day.
According to Dr. Dijk, the two views under consideration were in their original form simply a difference of opinion respecting the question, whether the fall of man was also included in the divine decree. Was the first sin of man, constituting his fall, predestined, or was this merely the object of divine foreknowledge?

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Berkhof explains it this way.
The doctrine of predestination has not always been presented in exactly the same form. Especially since the days of the Reformation, two different concepts of it gradually emerged, which were designated during the Arminian controversy as infra- and supralapsarianism. Already existing differences were more sharply defined and more strongly accentuated as the results of the theological disputes of the day.
According to Dr. Dijk, the two views under consideration were in their original form simply a difference of opinion respecting the question, whether the fall of man was also included in the divine decree. Was the first sin of man, constituting his fall, predestined, or was this merely the object of divine foreknowledge?

According to Dr. Dijk, the two views under consideration were in their original form simply a difference of opinion respecting the question,

This brings things together.

I am a list/bullet point person. Not sure why, but I understand it better.

This was on monergism..

The basic schema of infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism may be displayed as follows:

Infralapsarianism
1. the decree to create the world and (all) men
2. the decree that (all) men would fall
3. the election of some fallen men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)
4. the decree to redeem the elect by the cross work of Christ
5. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect

Supralapsarianism (historical)
1. the election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)
2. the decree to create the world and both kinds of men
3. the decree that all men would fall
4. the decree to redeem the elect, who are now sinners, by the cross work of Christ
5. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to these elect sinners

These lists display the traditional understandings of the lapsarian question. However, recent theologians have noted that neither list accurately depicts the logical way in which all reasonable creatures pursue their goals: first, they determine what they ultimately and primarily want, and then they walk backwards, as it were, through all the steps necessary to get there. If God's ultimate goal is the glory of the Lamb in sovereign mercy and righteous judgment, then there is a need for sinners; if there are to be sinners, there must be a fall; if there is a fall, there must be a world created in righteousness; hence, the logical order of God's decrees would be a modified supralapsarianism, as follows:

Supralapsarianism (modified)

1. the election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful
mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect)
2. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners
3. the decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ
4. the decree that men should fall
5. the decree to create the world and men

Anyhow, thank you.

I tend to overthink and it can make things harder for me to understand.