Objections To the Supralapsarian

[ElectedbyHim]

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)

I do not follow.

 

[Josheb]

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

Was scripture researched?

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

"They"? Is the "they" a reference to the authors of the "theological works on the subject"?

I ask because it is fairly commonplace for people to subscribe to positions based on what has been read/heard in "theological works," and not a research of scripture. The op (along with Posts 5 and13ff), for example, is firmly and explicitly couched theological works and not scripture. The two may not be contrary, but they might be. Only a knowledge of whole scripture would decide the matter.

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.

"Scriptures were added..."? Not sure what that means because no one but God adds to scripture, and there is only one source for scripture (the Bible) for Christians.

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

Well..... if the thread was read through twice, then it has been observed I reject both positions as red herrings because both positions presuppositionally assume a condition I do not believe exists in eternity: time. They assume there is a sequence of decisions, a temporal order to the decisions God made and He made decisions dependent upon the existence of sin at one "point" or another in eternity. Theologically that is a very messy set of (pre-)suppositions and my posts touched upon a number of reasons why that is the case.

I would begin, first, with definitions. Whether a Christian is Reformed or not, a subscriber of the WCF or not, we all tend to acknowledge and agree with the premise God exists prior to and external to that which He created. That is not only the clear inference from the very first verse in the Bible (and many others); it is also a logical necessity (even if scripture were silent on the matter the moment God is asserted as the Creator then His separateness is inescapably and necessarily implied). Therefore..... eternity is extratemporal. Since lapsarianism is based upon the existence of time and causality in eternity it errs. In other words, both lapsarian viewpoints start with a bad definition of eternity. Eternity is timeless and bidirectionally endless. Scripture is overwhelmingly about the events occurring in time and space. On the rare occasion that scripture speaks of something existing in eternity, it is silent regarding the exact particulars.

Re-read that last sentence. Notice I did NOT say....

On the rare occasion that scripture speaks of something beginning in eternity, it is silent regarding the exact particulars.

Eternity does not have a beginning. Events that have their beginning in eternity are those God created, and they are all time, space, and causality dependent. A lot of stuff exists in eternity, but nothing begins in eternity. Therefore, when the Bible opens with the statement, "In the beginning...." that is not a statement about eternity. That is a statement about a beginning, and the implication of the verse's "the" is that there is only one singular, solitary, sole beginning. In that beginning..... God created. In that beginning in He created the creation (the heavens and the earth). Everything that He made was made in six days. Time is nothing more than a measure of cause and effect. The moment God said, "Let there be...." and some thing was created time began.

To poke a wrench in the spokes scripture says a variety of things about things existing before the beginning . John 1, for example, explicitly states Jesus (the logos) was with God in the beginning. Peter wrote Jesus was foreknown/known/chosen before the world was created. He was revealed much later (during the last times) but known and chosen before anything of the world was created. In other words, that "before" existed before any before existed . Eternity is what existed before the beginning..... and eternity is extra-temporal. There was no time when Jesus was not foreknown. He was/is/will always be foreknown - eternally.

Lapsarianism assumes there is a point of time, a sequence of thoughts, decisions, and actions on God's part where "x" was decided, and the because of "x" some "y" was then decided, followed by a "z" of some soteriological or hamartiological perspective, all of which was predicated upon, dependent upon, an event that did not exist in eternity.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
In the beginning humans did not exist.
in the beginning sin did not exist.

In eternity there is no beginning.

I therefore question the entire paradigm where God had to sit down and sort through anything. as if he were a man who had to figure out what to do if and when something later occurred - something He, Himself, did not make! He is the Alpha and the Omega and He knows the beginning from the end (and, presumably, everything in between) and both He and His knowledge are omnisciently eternal (or eternally omniscient ). I cannot see a "point" in non-existent time of eternity when God had to sit down with Himself and decide, "What am I going to do about 'X'?"

The answer to red herring of lapsarianism, instead, lays in the fact Jesus' incarnation is not limited to the occurrence of sin and is not in any way dependent upon or predicated upon that event in creation, and event that occurred in time and space - not eternity. God always knew of sin's occurrence in time and space, shrugged His proverbial, infinitely-sized shoulders and said, "Meh. All that will transpire in creation is already addressed as a singular function of my will and purpose for all of creation." If God were asked, "When did You decide 'X'?" His answer would be, "What in heaven and earth are you asking about, o foolish man? I Am! I Am that I Am! There is no 'when' in eternity! I did not have to pause to consider what I would/should/could do, and I certainly did not predicate anything I created on the behavior of creatures."

The created creature behaves as s/he/it is created to behave and bases its behaviors on created predicates.

(I have got to go take a nap. I was nodding off in the middle of that post!)
.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

"They"? Is the "they" a reference to the authors of the "theological works on the subject"?

I ask because it is fairly commonplace for people to subscribe to positions based on what has been read/heard in "theological works," and not a research of scripture. The op (along with Posts 5 and13ff), for example, is firmly and explicitly couched theological works and not scripture. The two may not be contrary, but they might be. Only a knowledge of whole scripture would decide the matter.

"Scriptures were added..."? Not sure what that means because no one but God adds to scripture, and there is only one source for scripture (the Bible) for Christians.

Well..... if the thread was read through twice, then it has been observed I reject both positions as red herrings because both positions presuppositionally assume a condition I do not believe exists in eternity: time. They assume there is a sequence of decisions, a temporal order to the decisions God made and He made decisions dependent upon the existence of sin at one "point" or another in eternity. Theologically that is a very messy set of (pre-)suppositions and my posts touched upon a number of reasons why that is the case.

I would begin, first, with definitions. Whether a Christian is Reformed or not, a subscriber of the WCF or not, we all tend to acknowledge and agree with the premise God exists prior to and external to that which He created. That is not only the clear inference from the very first verse in the Bible (and many others); it is also a logical necessity (even if scripture were silent on the matter the moment God is asserted as the Creator then His separateness is inescapably and necessarily implied). Therefore..... eternity is extratemporal. Since lapsarianism is based upon the existence of time and causality in eternity it errs. In other words, both lapsarian viewpoints start with a bad definition of eternity. Eternity is timeless and bidirectionally endless. Scripture is overwhelmingly about the events occurring in time and space. On the rare occasion that scripture speaks of something existing in eternity, it is silent regarding the exact particulars.

Re-read that last sentence. Notice I did NOT say....

On the rare occasion that scripture speaks of something beginning in eternity, it is silent regarding the exact particulars.

Eternity does not have a beginning. Events that have their beginning in eternity are those God created, and they are all time, space, and causality dependent. A lot of stuff exists in eternity, but nothing begins in eternity. Therefore, when the Bible opens with the statement, "In the beginning...." that is not a statement about eternity. That is a statement about a beginning, and the implication of the verse's "the" is that there is only one singular, solitary, sole beginning. In that beginning..... God created. In that beginning in He created the creation (the heavens and the earth). Everything that He made was made in six days. Time is nothing more than a measure of cause and effect. The moment God said, "Let there be...." and some thing was created time began.

To poke a wrench in the spokes scripture says a variety of things about things existing before the beginning . John 1, for example, explicitly states Jesus (the logos) was with God in the beginning. Peter wrote Jesus was foreknown/known/chosen before the world was created. He was revealed much later (during the last times) but known and chosen before anything of the world was created. In other words, that "before" existed before any before existed . Eternity is what existed before the beginning..... and eternity is extra-temporal. There was no time when Jesus was not foreknown. He was/is/will always be foreknown - eternally.

Lapsarianism assumes there is a point of time, a sequence of thoughts, decisions, and actions on God's part where "x" was decided, and the because of "x" some "y" was then decided, followed by a "z" of some soteriological or hamartiological perspective, all of which was predicated upon, dependent upon, an event that did not exist in eternity.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
In the beginning humans did not exist.
in the beginning sin did not exist.

In eternity there is no beginning.

I therefore question the entire paradigm where God had to sit down and sort through anything. as if he were a man who had to figure out what to do if and when something later occurred - something He, Himself, did not make! He is the Alpha and the Omega and He knows the beginning from the end (and, presumably, everything in between) and both He and His knowledge are omnisciently eternal (or eternally omniscient ). I cannot see a "point" in non-existent time of eternity when God had to sit down with Himself and decide, "What am I going to do about 'X'?"

The answer to red herring of lapsarianism, instead, lays in the fact Jesus' incarnation is not limited to the occurrence of sin and is not in any way dependent upon or predicated upon that event in creation, and event that occurred in time and space - not eternity. God always knew of sin's occurrence in time and space, shrugged His proverbial, infinitely-sized shoulders and said, "Meh. All that will transpire in creation is already addressed as a singular function of my will and purpose for all of creation." If God were asked, "When did You decide 'X'?" His answer would be, "What in heaven and earth are you asking about, o foolish man? I Am! I Am that I Am! There is no 'when' in eternity! I did not have to pause to consider what I would/should/could do, and I certainly did not predicate anything I created on the behavior of creatures."

The created creature behaves as s/he/it is created to behave and bases its behaviors on created predicates.

(I have got to go take a nap. I was nodding off in the middle of that post!)
.

"They"? Is the "they" a reference to the authors of the "theological works on the subject"?

Correct.

I ask because it is fairly commonplace for people to subscribe to positions based on what has been read/heard in "theological works," and not a research of scripture. The op (along with Posts 5 and13ff), for example, is firmly and explicitly couched theological works and not scripture. The two may not be contrary, but they might be. Only a knowledge of whole scripture would decide the matter.

Agreed.

Out of all the books, websites and theological works I have looked into, only a few offer Scripture to support their claims. Many are very long-winded and to intense for my thought process.

"Scriptures were added..."? Not sure what that means because no one but God adds to scripture, and there is only one source for scripture (the Bible) for Christians.

Theses Scriptures were in some of the articles that the authors used to back their claims.

Well..... if the thread was read through twice, then it has been observed I reject both positions as red herrings because both positions presuppositionally assume a condition I do not believe exists in eternity: time. They assume there is a sequence of decisions, a temporal order to the decisions God made and He made decisions dependent upon the existence of sin at one "point" or another in eternity. Theologically that is a very messy set of (pre-)suppositions and my posts touched upon a number of reasons why that is the case.

I must admit that this thread can be intimidating as I am not grounded very well in the subject. However, I like to learn.

To poke a wrench in the spokes scripture says a variety of things about things existing before the beginning . John 1, for example, explicitly states Jesus (the logos) was with God in the beginning. Peter wrote Jesus was foreknown/known/chosen before the world was created. He was revealed much later (during the last times) but known and chosen before anything of the world was created. In other words, that "before" existed before any before existed . Eternity is what existed before the beginning..... and eternity is extra-temporal. There was no time when Jesus was not foreknown. He was/is/will always be foreknown - eternally.

Agreed.

Lapsarianism assumes there is a point of time, a sequence of thoughts, decisions, and actions on God's part where "x" was decided, and the because of "x" some "y" was then decided, followed by a "z" of some soteriological or hamartiological perspective, all of which was predicated upon, dependent upon, an event that did not exist in eternity.

Is this what is known as the logical order of God's decrees?

God always knew of sin's occurrence in time and space, shrugged His proverbial, infinitely-sized shoulders and said, "Meh. All that will transpire in creation is already addressed as a singular function of my will and purpose for all of creation." If God were asked, "When did You decide 'X'?" His answer would be, "What in heaven and earth are you asking about, o foolish man? I Am! I Am that I Am! There is no 'when' in eternity! I did not have to pause to consider what I would/should/could do, and I certainly did not predicate anything I created on the behavior of creatures."

Agreed.

The created creature behaves as s/he/it is created to behave and bases its behaviors on created predicates.

Nice fact.

Thank you for your insight.

As mentioned before, there is not much Scripture to back up Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarian, I truly think that is why I cannot grasp its reality.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
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.

You have misquoted me as saying: the ordo salutis is "not attempting to organize." What I said was, "the ordo salutis is not attempting to organize God's decree of election, decree of redemption, decree of regenerating, [etc.] ..."

Yes, the ordo salutis does attempt to organize the different "components" (for lack of a better immediately available word to me). But it does not attempt to organize God's decree(s) concerning them. It does not attempt to organize God's thoughts.

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.

Here, once again, is, in a nutshell, what I understand both Supra- and Infralapsarianism to be doing:

What are infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism? | GotQuestions.org

What are the various forms of lapsarianism? What are infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism / antelapsarianism? What are the infralapsarian, sublapsarian, and supralapsarian / antelapsarian viewpoints?

www.gotquestions.org

Infralapsarianism (“after the lapse”) puts God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed the creation of mankind, (2) God decreed mankind would be allowed to fall into sin through their own self-determination, (3) God decreed to save some of the fallen, and (4) God decreed to provide Jesus Christ as the Redeemer.

Supralapsarianism / antelapsarianism (“before the lapse”) puts God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed the election of some and the eternal condemnation of others, (2) God decreed to create those elected and eternally condemned, (3) God decreed to permit the fall, and (4) God decreed to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.

Both are attempting to order God's decrees, and so are attempting to order God's sequence of thought. But, we have no way to know God's logical progression of thought or decrees. We can only order what we conceive of, according to different kinds of sequence, as WE make them out. Ordo Salutis attempts to do the latter (organize our concepts). Lapsarianism attempts to do the impossible former (organize decrees).

Perhaps you could reply with quoted material from him that made your point so well.

Here's a couple of statements by @Josheb .
Josheb said:
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.
Josheb said:
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).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I reject both positions as red herrings because both positions presuppositionally assume a condition that I do not believe exists in eternity: time. They assume there is a sequence of decisions, a temporal order to the decisions God made ... Since lapsarianism is based upon the existence of time and causality in eternity, it errs. ... Lapsarianism assumes there is a point of time, a sequence of thoughts, decisions, and actions on God's part, ... I therefore question the entire paradigm where God had to sit down and sort through anything, as if he were a man who had to figure out what to do if and when something later occurred, something God himself did not make!

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

As my posts have shown, using quoted material cited from Reformed theologians (e.g., Geerhardus Vos), the supralapsarian view explicitly denies a temporal order in God's eternal decree. As yet another example, consider the following quote from Vos in his Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1 – Theology Proper (all emphases mine):

The question in the first place is not whether there is a temporal sequence in God's decrees. With scripture, everyone Reformed confesses the absolute eternity of God's being. It is an eternity elevated above all temporal duration, in which a thousand years are as yesterday when it has passed and as a watch in the night (Psa 90:4). ... What will happen at the consummation of the ages is, in that respect, not sooner than that which took place at the dawn of creation. [Any idea that] the differing parts of God's decree arise by stages of his observation must be rejected as incompatible with this eternity. That there would have first been a decree of creation, then of the fall, and then of predestination, or that these parts would have followed one another in reverse temporal order—both are in conflict with scripture. It may be impossible for our thinking, bound by time, to grasp this eternity of divine life; nevertheless we must acknowledge it and may maintain nothing that is in conflict with it. To express it as briefly as possible: There are in God not many decrees, but it is one, single, completely present decree.

As a matter of fact, all this is already contained in the names of supra- and infralapsarianism. If it was a matter of a temporal order, it should have been called ante- and postlapsarianism.
​

I have many such quotes and references to this effect, including theological dictionaries. For example, the Dictionary of Theological Terms (2002, 3rd ed.) says that this view "posits a logical (not a temporal) order in the decrees of God."

So, my request for you: Please cite and quote your source material, as I have for my claim.

Events that have their beginning in eternity are those God created, ...

... but nothing begins in eternity.

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

 

[makesends]

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.

Maybe this will help explain my objections to both sides of Lapsarianism's representatives.

The points in the lists you gave all concern God's decrees, or as statements of what God did from the beginning—i.e. His electing of individuals. But the facts, the things, the principles we can 'grasp' mentally, the categories, that are by God's decree are the only things we can arrange in whatever order our minds see best. Leaving alone for now other inconsistencies of the perennial debate, I have to say that we cannot actually conceive of God arranging his decrees in one order or another. Not only can we not know how God arranges them in his mind—we can't even know that he DOES arrange them in his mind. The best concepts that I have thought of and that theological philosophy has come up with would hint that he does NOT arrange them in his mind.

To protest by saying that he does arrange them in time, is to take away the notion of decree, which was done from 'outside of' time. Yes, WITHIN his decree, or as a RESULT of his decree, or what his decree STATES, do happen within this temporal frame. And we can arrange them as we will —according logical sequences according to importance, dependency of one thing upon another, temporal sequence, or whatever, but not as arrangements of DECREE.

God's decree is not the thing that happens, but God's decree is what establishes that the thing happen. We can arrange some order of our concepts of what happened, but not arrange some order of his decree that they happen.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

To protest by saying that he does arrange them in time ...

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

Yes, WITHIN his decree, or as a RESULT of his decree, or what his decree STATES, do happen within this temporal frame.

Certainly, we can arrange these things as they manifest either in history or the lives of the redeemed. But, again, this amounts to a temporal ordering—which I have shown, through quote after quote, is not what supralapsarianism is concerned with. A logical priority IS NOT a temporal priority. For example, "elect" has logical priority over "reprobate" in God's decree insofar as the concept of being "chosen" is a necessary precondition for defining "not chosen." But this in no way asserts that the choosing and passing over, respectively, occurred in a temporal sequence (an idea explicitly rejected in supralapsarianism).

And we can arrange them as we will—according logical sequences according to importance, dependency of one thing upon another, temporal sequence, or whatever, but not as arrangements of DECREE.

In the name of clarity, let me ask one basic question: What is this decree of God?

We can arrange some order of our concepts of what happened, but not arrange some order of his decree that they happen.

If what you mean to say is that we can organize theological concepts in a way that makes sense to us but we cannot dictate or fully comprehend how God's decree itself is structured, then I agree with you.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
To protest by saying that he does arrange them in time ...

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

The decree is done in/from eternity, and as authority over what happens temporally. No matter how we put it, we can only see temporally, so even our notions of cause-effect or other any other metric, is temporal —and most obviously so because lapsarianism is, in spite of the definitions, dealing with elements that are within this temporal (not eternal) order, but attempting to order them by GOD's eternal view.

Seems to me to employ false equivalence.

makesends said:
Yes, WITHIN his decree, or as a RESULT of his decree, or what his decree STATES, do happen within this temporal frame.

Certainly, we can arrange these things as they manifest either in history or the lives of the redeemed. But, again, this amounts to a temporal ordering—which I have shown, through quote after quote, is not what supralapsarianism is concerned with. A logical priority IS NOT a temporal priority. For example, "elect" has logical priority over "reprobate" in God's decree insofar as the concept of being "chosen" is a necessary precondition for defining "not chosen." But this in no way asserts that the choosing and passing over, respectively, occurred in a temporal sequence (an idea explicitly rejected in supralapsarianism).

True, "A logical priority IS NOT a temporal priority." But it IS our prioritizing of temporal facts.

makesends said:
And we can arrange them as we will—according logical sequences according to importance, dependency of one thing upon another, temporal sequence, or whatever, but not as arrangements of DECREE.

In the name of clarity, let me ask one basic question: What is this decree of God?

God's Decree is done from what I call God's Economy [of existence] —Eternity, or whatever might be a better term for it. It is the thing he has spoken into existence from the start, to include great themes and facts, and the micro-facts within all the greater themes and facts. (And, (just in cause this occurs to you) the truth that he, from his economy in some way immanently (or by some descriptions, 'temporally') 'inhabits' and/or sustains all those things doesn't mitigate the fact that his decree is not those things.

All reality, (I say), is done by God's decree. It, nor anything within it, IS God's decree. We do, in our limping minds, build structures separating this from that for independent considerations, calling this or that, that God decreed, in itself also 'a decree' from the beginning, and I don't really have a problem with that. But if they are what happened, they are not themselves his decree, anymore than that the universe IS God since he is the universe's sustenance.

The fall happened. That fall was not God's decree. It happened BY God's decree.

God did not decree that the fall happen, and then decree that redemption be. Rather, he decreed that the fall happen and then redemption happen.

Or, if you prefer, he did not decree that there be redemption and then decree that the fall happen. Rather, he decreed that there be redemption, and so the fall was necessary.

Arrange it how you want, for your mind's sake, you cannot arrange his decrees. That is over our head. You can only arrange what happened.

makesends said:
We can arrange some order of our concepts of what happened, but not arrange some order of his decree that they happen.

If what you mean to say is that we can organize theological concepts in a way that makes sense to us but we cannot dictate or fully comprehend how God's decree itself is structured, then I agree with you.

good

 

[Carbon]

@makesends & @DialecticSkeptic

A question or two for you both, just to make sure I am following correctly.

Was the fall a part of God's decree or not a part of His decree?

Did God include the decree to create and to permit the fall in the decree of predestination - Supra.
Or, was it the decree of God in general, and God excluded it from the special decree of predestination - Infra.

 

[makesends]

@makesends & @DialecticSkeptic

A question or two for you both, just to make sure I am following correctly.

Was the fall a part of God's decree or not a part of His decree?

Did God include the decree to create and to permit the fall in the decree of predestination - Supra.
Or, was it the decree of God in general, and God excluded it from the special decree of predestination - Infra.

Neither and none. The decree is not the thing decreed, and that neither in part nor in whole, any more than the universe comprises God.

 

[Carbon]

Neither and none. The decree is not the thing decreed, and that neither in part nor in whole, any more than the universe comprises God.

That's not what I asked, my question doesn't relate to that answer. But if you rather not answer, that is okay as well.

 

[Carbon]

That's not what I asked, my question doesn't relate to that answer. But if you rather not answer, that is okay as well.

I mean either the fall was decreed or it wasn't. There cannot be a neither.

 

[makesends]

I mean either the fall was decreed or it wasn't. There cannot be a neither.

But, that isn't what you asked. You asked if the fall was (or not) a 'part of' the decree. You didn't ask if the fall was (or not) a part of what was decreed. Nor did you ask if the fall was decreed. At best, your language was imprecise. And I suspect the language of lapsarianism is imprecise in the same way.

Yes, the fall was decreed. And, yes, the fall was part of what was decreed. I don't begin to know any sequence of those decrees, nor any separation of one from another. They have to do with God's thoughts—not ours.

If we ever get past this about "Decree", there is still another problem. I can say, as @Josheb showed, that the fall is not immediately related to the final end (goal) of all things, and that Redemption is. But that is as far as I can see the term, 'decree', being relevant. And even that is still my inconsequential and silly way to put it. It is not God's decree, even if he decreed that I am right!

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The decree is done in/from eternity and as authority over what happens temporally. No matter how we put it, we can only see temporally, so even our notions of cause-effect (or any other metric) is temporal—and most obviously so because lapsarianism is, in spite of the definitions, dealing with elements that are within this temporal (not eternal) order, but attempting to order them by GOD's eternal view. ... True, "a logical priority IS NOT a temporal priority." But it IS our prioritizing of temporal facts.

I don't know who you are presuming to speak for when you make these sweeping claims about "our" notions and what "we" are capable of doing, but you are not speaking for me. Unlike you, apparently, I can analyze logical priority without entailing temporal priority. If you cannot, well, that is unfortunate, but do not presume to make claims about what I can or cannot do.

And, no, supralapsarianism is not "dealing with elements that are within this temporal order," nor is it a "prioritizing of temporal facts"—for there is no temporal order until God creates. When elements like the fall are being considered in this view, for example, it's being done in the context of the transcendent intratrinitarian reality (whatever that is), logically prior to the creation of this temporal order.

Furthermore, supralapsarianism does not attempt to order these elements "by God's eternal view." It attempts to order them logically. Is that how God views them? That is a categorically separate question which is not raised, much less answered. What can be said, however—and has been explicitly said in the several quotes I have provided—is that this logical ordering is not temporal, for God is eternal, unchanging, and so forth.

Will any of your claims or statements going forward be modified by these corrections?

In the name of clarity, let me ask one basic question: What is this decree of God?

God's decree is ... the thing he has spoken into existence from the start, to include great themes and facts, and the micro-facts within all the greater themes and facts.

You misunderstood my question. Let me try again, but this time I will explicitly include an adjective: "What is this eternal decree of God?" I am not asking what he did with it (e.g., "spoken into existence"), I am asking what it is. If his decree is not an intelligible concept apart from creation on your view, then so be it. But if it is, then please answer.

God decreed that the fall happen and then redemption happen. ... [Or] he decreed that there be redemption and so the fall was necessary.

Brother, you just identified a logical order to God's decree (insofar as "the fall" and "redemption" are logically distinct).

Arrange it how you want, for your mind's sake, you cannot arrange his decrees. That is over our head. You can only arrange what happened.

In order to arrange "what happened," a temporal order must exist. But God's eternal decree is logically prior to its execution.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

@makesends & @DialecticSkeptic

A question or two for you both, just to make sure I am following correctly.

Was the fall a part of God's decree ...?

Yes.

Did God include the decree to create and to permit the fall in the decree of predestination?

No. Election and predestination are typically considered together as part of the same decree, which logically precedes the decree of creation and the fall.

 

[makesends]

I don't know who you are presuming to speak for when you make these sweeping claims about "our" notions and what "we" are capable of doing, but you are not speaking for me. Unlike you, apparently, I can analyze logical priority without entailing temporal priority. If you cannot, well, that is unfortunate, but do not presume to make claims about what I can or cannot do.

I thought I explained that well enough, but apparently not. My bad. Let me try again. Hope I don't repeat myself.

Neither you, nor I, nor any human, have the knowledge of God sufficient to suppose how he arranges his thoughts. If God decreed whatever he has decreed, then we, lacking scriptural statement of the sequence of his thought, cannot say what he decreed first, whether by 'first' we mean such logical sequences as 'cause and effect' or whatever else.

So, what we have done is speak of what the decrees have done, and THAT is a temporal reference. I am not saying it must be dealt with as time sequence, because I also generally prefer to speak of such things as causal sequence —or causal 'prioritizing', as you are saying— independent from temporal sequence/prioritizing.

With ordo salutis, we attempt to arrange a logical order in our minds as to what the terms mean and how the one logically causes or implies the next; we do not attempt to arrange a logical order of God decreeing these terms—the terms are necessarily what occur within time. The decree is not done within time and we cannot touch it. Again, with ordo salutis, you and I can speak of regeneration as necessarily preceding confession. We cannot, (and we don't attempt to), speak as to whether God's decree of regeneration precedes God's decree of anyone confessing. We can only suppose he decreed the whole ball of wax in one 'say-so'.

And, no, supralapsarianism is not "dealing with elements that are within this temporal order," nor is it a "prioritizing of temporal facts"—for there is no temporal order until God creates. When elements like the fall are being considered in this view, for example, it's being done in the context of the transcendent intratrinitarian reality (whatever that is), logically prior to the creation of this temporal order.

Did you not, in your bullet points, arrange the terms of Supralapsarianism as decrees? Yet, what you are talking about, and what you attempt to arrange, is not actually decrees, but the things decreed. WHY do you insist on 'decree'? Again: We humans are incapable of logically arranging one decree as causal of another decree. Again: We humans can only logically arrange the facts that have been decreed.

Furthermore, supralapsarianism does not attempt to order these elements "by God's eternal view." It attempts to order them logically. Is that how God views them?

Lol, Bro, I can feel you growing frustrated, and I'm pretty sure you don't actually disagree with me. What we are trying to do is adjust our language to meet some semblance of common terms. Can God view things logically? Of course. And for all I know he can order his decrees logically. That's not in my bailiwick to say.

Supralapsarianism claims (according to your bullet points), not to order the elements about which each decree speaks, but to order the decrees themselves. God's eternal view is the decree(s). We don't have his view.

That is a categorically separate question which is not raised, much less answered. What can be said, however—and has been explicitly said in the several quotes I have provided—is that this logical ordering is not temporal, for God is eternal, unchanging, and so forth.

Will any of your claims or statements going forward be modified by these corrections?

Bro, don't do that. I have to be convinced I am wrong before I can correct anything I said.

Again, I have not said that this logical ordering is temporal (unless I did actually say that, mistakenly). I have said that it is about what occurs temporally. We see the results of the decree. We don't see the decree itself. We can grasp a concept of a thing decreed, and that thing is a temporally seen/understood thing. We cannot grasp God speaking/declaring/decreeing. Again, I am not referring to temporal ordering, but logical ordering of things that occur in this temporal existence in which we are currently bound.

makesends said:

In the name of clarity, let me ask one basic question: What is this decree of God?

God's decree is ... the thing he has spoken into existence from the start, to include great themes and facts, and the micro-facts within all the greater themes and facts.

You misunderstood my question. Let me try again, but this time I will explicitly include an adjective: "What is this eternal decree of God?" I am not asking what he did with it (e.g., "spoken into existence"), I am asking what it is. If his decree is not an intelligible concept apart from creation on your view, then so be it. But if it is, then please answer.

And ...around we go, lol. In what you quoted, I may not have been clear enough. God's decree is not the thing he decreed. So I should not have said that "[God's decree] is ... the thing he has spoken into existence from the start, to include great themes and facts, and the micro-facts within all the greater themes and facts."

So, the 'eternal decree of God' is the same thing as the decree of God. And, I'm not saying that we aren't capable of making intelligible statements concerning God's decree. I'm saying that we cannot arrange those decrees according to our method of sequencing. We can only do that to the THINGS that are decreed—not the decree(s) themselves.

makesends said:
God decreed that the fall happen and then redemption happen. ... [Or] he decreed that there be redemption and so the fall was necessary.

Brother, you just identified a logical order to God's decree (insofar as "the fall" and "redemption" are logically distinct).

I disagree. I identified a logical order to components (the fall and redemption) that were decreed, or within what was decreed. I did not identify a logical order to the decree(s) themselves. "The fall" was only the fall. "The fall" is not "the decree of the fall" nor even "the decree that the fall happen".

In order to arrange "what happened," a temporal order must exist. But God's eternal decree is logically prior to its execution.

I'd put it like this: "In order to arrange "what happened," a temporal order [fact] must exist." That temporal fact is "what happened"

"But God's eternal decree is logically prior to its execution" That, I agree with. What I don't get is how that translates to "God's eternal decree that there be X comes before God's eternal decree that there be Y."

 

[fastfredy0]

I ask because it is fairly commonplace for people to subscribe to positions based on what has been read/heard in "theological works," and not a research of scripture. The op (along with Posts 5 and13ff), for example, is firmly and explicitly couched theological works and not scripture. The two may not be contrary, but they might be. Only a knowledge of whole scripture would decide the matter.

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

 

[Carbon]

But, that isn't what you asked. You asked if the fall was (or not) a 'part of' the decree. You didn't ask if the fall was (or not) a part of what was decreed. Nor did you ask if the fall was decreed. At best, your language was imprecise. And I suspect the language of lapsarianism is imprecise in the same way.

Yes, the fall was decreed. And, yes, the fall was part of what was decreed. I don't begin to know any sequence of those decrees, nor any separation of one from another. They have to do with God's thoughts—not ours.

If we ever get past this about "Decree", there is still another problem. I can say, as @Josheb showed, that the fall is not immediately related to the final end (goal) of all things, and that Redemption is. But that is as far as I can see the term, 'decree', being relevant. And even that is still my inconsequential and silly way to put it. It is not God's decree, even if he decreed that I am right!

After what you said above, I suspect you are a Supra…

 

[makesends]

Carbon said:
@makesends & @DialecticSkeptic

A question or two for you both, just to make sure I am following correctly.

Was the fall a part of God's decree ...?

Yes.

The answer to this disparity may lie in mere 'kind of thinking'. This question, to me, is a sloughing of thought; it is imprecise.

It attempts to combine the result or effect of the decree —the thing decreed— with the decree itself. I don't think that way.

Reminds me of a conversation between myself and @Binyawmene about mathematically logical statements, in particular, propositional statements. For the sake of truth tables, a statement such as "If the works done in you were done in Sodom, [then] it would have remained to this day." In short, he says the first half —'if the works done in you were done in Sodom'— is false. I say, no, it is not false. It is not anything, unless you remove the word, "if", from the statement. He says, "I didn't make the rules". I say I understand the rules and the truth table. The rules may say, "assign a designation of 'false' to the first half of the statement". It doesn't say, "the first half of the statement is false".

Get me?

Here you both seem to think God's decree IS what I call the thing God decreed—i.e. the object of the decree.