Objections To the Supralapsarian

[DialecticSkeptic]

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

That is a conclusion without its accompanying argument.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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

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

 

[makesends]

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

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

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



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

 

[makesends]

​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Truncated because it ran over 10000 words.

 

[makesends]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is of course true that in either system the sovereign choice of God in election is stressed and salvation in its whole course is the work of God. Opponents usually stress the supralapsarian system since it is the one which without explanation is more likely to conflict with man’s natural feelings and impressions. It is also true that there are some things here which cannot be put into the time mould,—that these events are not in the Divine mind as they are in ours, by a succession of acts, one after another, but that by one single act God has at once ordained all these things. In the Divine mind the plan is a unit, each part of which is designed with reference to a state of facts which God intended should result from the other parts. All of the decrees are eternal. They have a logical, but not a chronological, relationship. Yet in order for us to reason intelligently about them we must have a certain order of thought. We very naturally think of the gift of Christ in sancification and glorification as following the decrees of the creation and the fall.

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

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

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

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

 

[atpollard]

That is a conclusion without its accompanying argument.

Technically, you just asked a YES/NO question ... so the rest of my answer was a "parenthetical bonus" rather than a conclusion needing logical support. "No." just seemed a bit brief of a response. Your second question was predicated on a "no" answer to your first question.

 

[atpollard]

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

I respectfully disagree.

It implies a LOGICAL working out of thoughts, a planning of steps, rather than a temporal period of God engaging in the process. God has no need of "working out" logical steps, so all steps are logically concurrent. Christ will redeem and man will fall and sin will be punished and Christ will be incarnated and Adam will disobey and Job will speak rightly and the Universe will be created .... all LOGICALLY determined concurrently and interdependently in the ETERNAL NOW. There is no "logical order" ... that is an artificial construct for us, who dwell temporally and conceive sequentially of a chain of causes-effects, while GOD in ETERNAL NOW (extra-temporal) is the only cause and all effects are logically simultaneous from the ONE GREAT CAUSE (His fixed Plan/Will).

 

[atpollard]

Let me approach this from a different direction. There is a term in ARCHITECTURE and MUSIC called "eurythmic" that means "all parts working together in harmony towards the whole". We are all VERY FAMILIAR with this passage of Scripture:

Ephesians 2:1-10 [ESV]​

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 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-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.​

LOGICALLY (not CHRONOLOGICALLY), did God PLAN part of this before and after other parts of this, or was this whole "system" set up with "irreducible complexity"? Did God DESIGN a logical system of interrelated parts that all required each-other to stand as part of a single, unified PLAN/WILL of God?

The gift is inseparable from grace and faith and the works "God prepared beforehand" and the works "not your own" and dead in trespasses and made us alive. Nothing can be teased out as a LOGICAL first, only Temporal and Chronological and Experiential first and next (our world, not His). It is a "eurythmic" plan. LOGICALLY indivisible without collapsing.

I posit that ALL OF GOD's Plan is just like this. Temporally divisible from the human perspective, but LOGICALLY created in the mind of God as a single eurythmic irreducible-complexity concept. One great plan LOGICALLY existing all at once with no LOGICAL before or after. The OMEGA is the ALPHA [just like Eph 2:1-10].

 

[prism]

First, to claim that logic is a man-made construct is to suggest that man created logic, but that's as unintelligible as saying that man created mathematical truths like 2 + 2 = 4. Logic, like mathematics (which is crucially related) is not something man created but rather discovered in the very fabric of reality. Logical principles, such as the law of noncontradiction (A ≠ ¬A), are universally valid and necessary. If logic reflects the structure of reality, and if God is the ultimate reality (as he surely is), then the laws of logic are grounded in his unchanging, self-consistent nature. Paul affirms in 2 Timothy 2:13 that God "cannot deny himself," which means he cannot act contrary to who he is. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Because God is necessarily self-consistent and unchanging (Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8), contradictions cannot exist within him. The Christian tradition has long affirmed that logical truths exist eternally in the nature and attributes of God. Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas all recognized this. As Augustine observed, "The validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men but is observed and noted by them, that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things and has its origin with God."

I'm not coming against 'logic' per se, it is useful as you mentioned, but rather how it is used when we are dealing with an infinite God.

 

[Mr GLee]

(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.

I would offer

Christ the husband of the bride has written her name in two books.

Two is the witness one God has spoken. It is used that way throughout. The "law of faith" power "let there be and it was God alone good "

The Lamb slain from the beginning or foundation of the world the six days the father did work. A three day and night demonstrated thousands-year later.

Revelation3:5;He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Daniel 7:10A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books (2) were opened.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Revelation 21:27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life

Who soever name is not found written in the Lambs book it will be like they were never born. The former thing of this world will not be remembered or ever come to mind

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.

To love is to bless. To hate is to bless less.

God will have mercy mixed with grace on whom he wills

 

[Josheb]

Josheb said:
the finish point of the Uncaused Cause's first cause

See, here's a bone of contention in terminology, between @Josheb and myself. The uncaused causer didn't have a first cause

That is correct. He is The Uncaused Cause, the Cause without a cause. He is the Uncaused Cause who causes all other causes.

. He had many first results...

All of which began with Him, the Uncaused Cause who caused all other causes.

, all of which, to my knowledge became what I might call second(ary) causes.

Yep.

GOD was the first cause.

Which is exactly what I stated.

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

NEVER said any such thing.

Yet in all this time I haven't understood from him just what that First Cause might be.

Yep. I have not been understood because my posts were misunderstood.

 

[Josheb]

DialecticSkeptic said:
"It is logically before or after, not chronologically."

"Logically before" (or after) only means by sequence of causation, or some other way for us to consider a matter, in sequence of thought. —Not necessarily in temporal chronology.

That is incorrect but, more importantly, such a view would compromise divine omniscience. If there is a moment when God hadn't decided something, then He did know that which He would decide. This, in turn, leads to the problem of God not knowing His own mind.

 

[makesends]

That is correct. He is The Uncaused Cause, the Cause without a cause. He is the Uncaused Cause who causes all other causes.

True.

All of which began with Him, the Uncaused Cause who caused all other causes.

Yep

Yep.

Which is exactly what I stated.

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

NEVER said any such thing.

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

The thing is, we have been round this course before, and I thought we had a least made par on one hole.

Yep. I have not been understood because my posts were misunderstood.

Ok. I think I get your point on that.

 

[makesends]

That is incorrect but, more importantly, such a view would compromise divine omniscience. If there is a moment when God hadn't decided something, then He did know that which He would decide. This, in turn, leads to the problem of God not knowing His own mind.

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

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

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[Supralapsarians likewise] fail to take into view God's larger or end purposes in creating ...

Please explain how that can possibly follow after what I said in my post?

God's decree for salvation was not merely a response to sin but part of his eternal purpose and plan from the beginning, reinforcing the idea that Christ's role as redeemer is not an afterthought or a reaction to the fall but the centerpiece of God's eternal purpose. ... God's ultimate goal (the glorified kingdom in Christ) was decreed first, and the fall and redemption were ordained as the means to that goal.
​

Again, this is the biblical-theological principle of eschatology precedes soteriology. Supralapsarians, I was pleasantly surprised to learn, do take into view God's larger or end purposes in creating. As I said, "The creation by God of all reality that is distinct from God (i.e., thus including angelic beings) took place on the basis of the pactum salutis and with a view to its execution."

If I may paraphrase: "It makes little sense to consider that God, who dwells outside of time, should decree according to a logical before or after (as in causal sequence) of these greater themes."

There is an informal logical fallacy known as argumentum ad lapidem, where an argument is dismissed as ridiculous—or nonsensical?—without providing any evidence or reasoning to support that idea. My argument is that there is a logical order to God's eternal decree, not a temporal sequence.

"It makes little sense," you offered. Okay, but now explain why. Why does it make little sense for there to be logical ordering in God's decree? If there is a distinction between "elect" and "reprobate" in God's eternal decree, then necessarily there is logical ordering. If God chose some (elect), then necessarily he did not choose others (reprobate). That is a logical ordering. And there are a lot more distinctions to be had in his eternal decree, all of which highlight a logical ordering—

—not a chronological ordering or temporal sequence.

"Certainly, God would not decree redemption without a decree of sin," you said, and I appreciate you making my case.

The question is whether the arrangement we tend to make of these things is of any particular use, since, it would seem, the one decree does not follow another, but that the whole matter being one decree would seem more apt.

Correct, we do separate and name—the privilege of God's image-bearers—not a number of different decrees, but a logical ordering to God's one eternal decree.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Technically, you just asked a yes/no question ...

Technically, no, I did not. (This is why people need to quote the person to whom they are responding.)

I said (emphasis added), "Does that make a difference? If not, how is it nonsensical?"

Your second question was predicated on a "no" answer to your first question.

What second question? It was one question, in two parts. Here it is once more (emphasis added):

So, my question to you remains: "Does that make a difference? If not, how is it nonsensical?" (link)
​

I respectfully disagree.

Not sure why. Let's have a look.

It implies a LOGICAL working out of thoughts, a planning of steps, rather than a temporal period of God engaging in the process.

A working out of thoughts, a planning of steps, these phrases imply a temporal sequence (i.e., progression over time).

You can have a logical ordering without a temporal sequence, which is why I deny the latter in my affirmation of the former—particularly when talking about a transcendent God who exists in an eternal now.

God has no need of "working out" logical steps, so all steps are logically concurrent.

"Concurrent" is a temporal term. It refers to things that are happening, occurring, being done, etc. This term cannot apply to God's eternal decree (but it can refer to the execution thereof).

There are logical antecedents to the elements of God's decree but chronologically they are coincident (i.e., executed at once).

There is no "logical order."

If there is any distinction within God's eternal decree between elect and reprobate, or between Christ and church, etc., then there is logical ordering.

That is an artificial construct for us,

I would say that it's a divine construct, as this logical ordering is drawn from scripture.

“For who, even of slight intelligence, does not understand that God, as nurses commonly do with infants, is wont in measure to ‘lisp’ in speaking to us? Thus, such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.” (John Calvin, Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 13, Section 1).

 

[atpollard]

This is tiresome, however, since you want QUOTES, here we go … my recent claim:

Technically, you just asked a YES/NO question ...

Your “taint so” to that claim:

Technically, no, I did not. (This is why people need to quote the person to whom they are responding.)

I said (emphasis added), "Does that make a difference? If not, how is it nonsensical?"

However, you stated “Does that make a difference?” as your first question, so my claim that “you just asked a YES/NO question” was correct. YES, you did ask a yes/no question since the answer to “Does that make a difference?” is either “YES, it does make a difference.” or “NO, it does not make a difference.”

However, it is clearly not worth the effort to continue this conversation if I have to work this hard just to first PROVE you asked a yes/no question before I can answer it with a Yes or a No. What hope is there to respond to the second question in any meaningful conversation.

Caio.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
[Supralapsarians likewise] fail to take into view God's larger or end purposes in creating ...

Please explain how that can possibly follow after what I said in my post?

I followed the link under which you quoted that. I'm not denying that I said it. I just don't see where I said it, by that link; I don't see the context, so I can't very well defend why (or how it can possibly follow after what you said in your post. I don't even know in what post you said what you are talking about.) EDIT: I see now the words highlighted as a link, "I said in my post". I don't know if it is because I have a black background for my eye's sake, or what, but I did not see that as a link. It only shows up as a link when I am writing.

However, I can make a guess, or, at least, somewhat of a defense. AS I UNDERSTAND the descriptions of both sides, they both seem to me to fail to take into the view God's larger or end purposes in creating. I will try again: From the beginning, God had in mind the very end, and it is for that, that he created. To dissect the pieces, starting variously with the fall or with redemption, and considering what followed or led that, is, to me, failing to see the whole ball of wax as what God made from the beginning.

I don't mean to scorn here. I say it like this to reorient the mind in its quest for truth: Who cares whether the decreed fall produced the decreed Redemption as over against the decreed Redemption causing the decreed fall? They were both decreed from the beginning.

Now, if that argument does not represent both Lapsarianisms, well, ok then. AND, like I said somewhere, if I had to choose one, I would choose Supra- because it seems to approach my point a little more closely. Yet, even in whatever descriptions I read with understanding (IF I understood, lol), the argument is still over the same issue, though, Supralapsarianism does use the fact of Christ's place in eternity (as God's purpose for creation and as the end of our faith), as decreed from the beginning, in its arguments against Infralapsarianism. But, again, that seems to be a 'helper fact', a reference, an argument that the Infras are looking at the sequence wrong, and not the argument itself, that the sequence is only for our mental gymnastics, and not how God sees things, not for God.

God's decree for salvation was not merely a response to sin but part of his eternal purpose and plan from the beginning, reinforcing the idea that Christ's role as redeemer is not an afterthought or a reaction to the fall but the centerpiece of God's eternal purpose. ... God's ultimate goal (the glorified kingdom in Christ) was decreed first, and the fall and redemption were ordained as the means to that goal.

I agree completely. I could even say that that is my whole point. The 'logical sequence', then, seems to me superfluous. Whose logical sequence is it, after all?

Again, this is the biblical-theological principle of eschatology precedes soteriology. Supralapsarians, I was pleasantly surprised to learn, do take into view God's larger or end purposes in creating. As I said, "The creation by God of all reality that is distinct from God (i.e., thus including angelic beings) took place on the basis of the pactum salutis and with a view to its execution."

Right, and good for them. I wish they would let that larger purpose be the end of the conversation, instead of support for how they order decrees behind/after/toward/whatever it.
makesends said:
If I may paraphrase: "It makes little sense to consider that God, who dwells outside of time, should decree according to a logical before or after (as in causal sequence) of these greater themes."

There is an informal logical fallacy known as argumentum ad lapidem, where an argument is dismissed as ridiculous—or nonsensical?—without providing any evidence or reasoning to support that idea. My argument is that there is a logical order to God's eternal decree, not a temporal sequence.

The paraphrase was not a statement of what I believe nor how I see things, but only a paraphrase of what @prism said. If @prism accepts it, argue with him. I only wrote it to ease some of his language, and to attempt to make better sense of it. That I agree with him is only in the one main —that arguments I hear by lapsarians seem to me superfluous in their intent to lend order to this decree over that decree, when the whole is the one decree, and God does not need to set cause and effect in motion as separate decrees.

"It makes little sense," you offered. Okay, but now explain why.

No, I paraphrased. Ask Prism to explain why it makes little sense.

Why does it make little sense for there to be logical ordering in God's decree? If there is a distinction between "elect" and "reprobate" in God's eternal decree, then necessarily there is logical ordering. If God chose some (elect), then necessarily he did not choose others (reprobate). That is a logical ordering. And there are a lot more distinctions to be had in his eternal decree, all of which highlight a logical ordering—

—not a chronological ordering or temporal sequence.

"Certainly, God would not decree redemption without a decree of sin," you said, and I appreciate you making my case

I'm having a little trouble understanding why you are into me about this. I'm agreed that there is a logical ordering. My point is, why place the ordering by logical sequence according to "God planned x, therefore y was necessary" instead of "y was necessary for x to be sensibly decreed, so God decreed y too" when neither one look very hard at a-z.

I don't mean to be disparaging there. I'm just trying to be clear. I don't get why it needs to be ordered one way or the other, except, perhaps according to how one or the other are eternal in import. That is, Redemption is part of the main, the end, the meaning of Christ, the person of Christ, the character of Christ. So, great, then —claim that Christ our Redemption is logically first, then the fall logically follows. Or claim that the fall comes first in logical sequence because without the fall there would be no Redemption. I really don't care. I think the arrangements are superfluous. Frankly, so far, I don't see how the one even denies the other.

BUT, like I said, I don't know all the statements of one side nor the other.

makesends said:
The question is whether the arrangement we tend to make of these things is of any particular use, since, it would seem, the one decree does not follow another, but that the whole matter being one decree would seem more apt.

Correct, we do separate and name—the privilege of God's image-bearers—not a number of different decrees, but a logical ordering to God's one eternal decree.

Let me put it like this, and get into the weeds: How does the one position definitely deny the other? They both use the term, 'logical order', the use of which term is backwards the one from the other? Whose order? Order of events as cause/effect from OUR point of view, or from the point of view of God's intent? Or what?

 

[makesends]

This is tiresome, however, since you want QUOTES, here we go … my recent claim:

Your “taint so” to that claim:


However, you stated “Does that make a difference?” as your first question, so my claim that “you just asked a YES/NO question” was correct. YES, you did ask a yes/no question since the answer to “Does that make a difference?” is either “YES, it does make a difference.” or “NO, it does not make a difference.”

However, it is clearly not worth the effort to continue this conversation if I have to work this hard just to first PROVE you asked a yes/no question before I can answer it with a Yes or a No. What hope is there to respond to the second question in any meaningful conversation.

Caio.

For whatever it may be worth, bro., the two questions together are one inquiry. I'm not even sure @DialecticSkeptic realized he had written it as two questions, or considered the first as more than simply rhetorical, or something by which to orient the second, which was the one he was after answering.

 

[prism]

The paraphrase was not a statement of what I believe nor how I see things, but only a paraphrase of what @prism said. If @prism accepts it, argue with him.

I missed the paraphrase in question, but I believe this whole discussion can be answered with…

Isaiah 55:8 KJV
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.