The Seed of the Woman? The Surprising Logic of Redemptive History

[ReverendRV]

I'm not pursing contention here, and not trying to hijack the OP, to ask if this is why some hold to supralapsarianism and others to infralapsarianism. I hear you describe @Arial 's POV as beginning with the fall, and yours with before creation. I agree with you completely that the pactum salutis began before creation. But maybe this gives me a reason to understand (though not agree with) the notion of '"decrees"' as being logically included as according to order'. The definitions of the two lapsarianisms —do they have to do with when the ONE decree was made? If your perspective and Arial's are put as you seem to here, as— "These are the two places in 'history' that the decrees could have been made", then I could happily go with Supra.

But I don't see lapsarianism there at all, but for man's need to order things in his own mind. That God did all —election, creation, the fall, redemption— is within the one decree: A people unlike any other, for his own glory, to be their God and they his people. WE speak of election as one decree, creation as another, and so on. To me, they are not, though they are most definitely all decreed. They are not separate decrees. They are all within the one decree.

Does that help you understand why I, and maybe @Josheb —I probably shouldn't try to speak for him on this— kept saying we don't see lapsarianism at all?

Sometimes I look at Lapsarianism like Abraham intending to Sacrifice his son; NOW God knew. Certainly it was Decreed in Eternity, but 'In Time' it was experiently known then. More or less, I'm saying Supra and Infra could both be true. I often say it depends on which day it is, on which one I prefer. I agree; they exist because of the need for Us to Order them in our Minds...

 

[ReverendRV]

Does @DialecticSkeptic "chop it up?"

Nothing feels broken when he talks... It seems more broken when you talk sometimes, but I just assume particulars I don't understand...

He does talk well. It's a Gift...

 

[makesends]

To be fair, the infralapsarian and supralapsarian views regard the ordo salutis (the logical ordering of salvation), and specifically whether the decree of election and reprobation was made with regard to man as fallen. Necessarily, the purpose or reason for creation is logically prior to the act of creation (i.e., in the act of creation God was executing an existing purpose), and, necessarily, God's purposes are logically ordered (i.e., not random or chaotic). Also, as I have said elsewhere, the pactum salutis contextualizes God's eternal decree and the ordo salutis is the logical ordering thereof, and all of this occurs in the eternity of God.

makesends said:
But I don't see lapsarianism there at all, but for man's need to order things in his own mind. That God did all —election, creation, the fall, redemption— is within the one decree […] We speak of election as one decree, creation as another, and so on. To me, they are not. Although they are most definitely all decreed, they are not separate decrees. They are all within the one decree.

Does that help you understand why I and maybe @Josheb […] kept saying we don't see lapsarianism at all?

No, it does not help me understand—because that is something already admitted by theologians discussing this issue. I had quoted Geerhardus Vos to you before (link) as clearly saying (emphasis mine),

[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.

Ok, I'll leave it alone, then.

I had intended to leave it alone for a couple of reasons. 1. It sounded like it might descend into contention, and 2. It felt off-topic. Now, I see neither. I'll not leave it alone, (quite yet, lol). 3. And you laughed at me, which stirred my indignation and other old words

You say that other theologians such as Geerhardus Vos whom you quoted, have said essentially the same thing I do —so, if you accept what he says, and presumably then, what I said in similar terms as they, why do you consider lapsarianism? Is it not humanly ordering God's decrees?

This may seem tangential to the topic, but I think it deals with it by dealing with the workings of our minds concerning the topic —what we assume in making our statements. I do not see HOW God's decrees can be ordered logically. It is almost as though lapsarians are saying that the one THING follows another logically (I have no problem with that), but then they call the THING, "decree".

Let me approach it like this —Are we capable of logically ordering God's thinking?

 

[ReverendRV]

Let me approach it like this —Are we capable of logically ordering God's thinking?

No...

 

[Josheb]

Let me approach it like this —Are we capable of logically ordering God's thinking?

No.

That being said, the appeal to "logical" ordering is often a smokescreen because the logical ordering implies a temporally sequential ordering. If we say, for example, a new birth logically occurs before sanctification (or vice versa) and they both occur prior to justification (which justification? )* then either what use is our logical ordering if it has no basis in reality (real application) or what use is the appeal to logic alone absent real application? More importantly, how is that reconciled with the Reformed position this was all ordained before eternity when time** and faulty human logic did not exist. How is that reconciled with basic capital "T" Theology (the nature of God)? Did Got actually have to think through a process of salvation that contained determinate waypoints and then order the necessary conditions for salvation? Everyone bow down and wrap your knuckles on the floor because that question is rock bottom foundation. The moment we think God has to think we've compromised divine omniscience because it necessarily implies there was a moment/point in eternity when God did not know something.

Do I sanctify before I justify, or justify before I sanctify?
​

I doubt very seriously that condition ever exists for an all-knowing God.

Does that help you understand why I and maybe @Josheb […] kept saying we don't see lapsarianism at all?

Just to make my position on the topic clear: While the matter may be an interesting and useful intellectual exercise and a tool useful for understanding something of scripture we might not otherwise grasp absent the exercise..... lapsarianism is a red herring. Both sides fall prey to something that serves only to distract us, or divert us, from more substantive (and obtainable) matters.


This happens with many matters on which scripture is silent. When scripture is silent, because scripture is silent, the best we can hope for is speculation. All answers to silence are, necessarily, speculative - no matter how close to the truth they may be. Caution, therefore, is the order of the day in all such conditions and that is the demand for two reasons: 1) we do not want to intellectualize to the point of idolatry, 2) we do not want to mislead others. We are at our best when we reason through to the best of our God-given abilities AND also acknowledge our limits. There's no reason Christians cannot hold and teach multiple viewpoints simultaneously as things that have been considered but remain unknown definitively. Theology has often worked that way to our collective benefit. Bad reasoning eventually gets discarded and what remains may not be definitive, but it still falls within the pale of orthodoxy.




You all (or at least most of you) know I think human volition (especially the unregenerate sinner's volition) is irrelevant to salvation. All monergists, therefore, fall prey to a red herring the minute they debate the matter. The synergists broaches volition and the monergist takes the bait. The discussion then digresses far afield of reality: the sinner's volition is irrelevant to God's knowledge, will, and purpose. They same sort of thing occurs when considering whether or not the fall was part of the plan or God amended the plan to accommodate the fall He saw coming. Both views fall prey to the premise the fall is relevant. It is not relevant. God shrugged His proverbial shoulders at Adam's disobedience and said, "Meh; it does not affect my plan, nor the purpose of creation, one iota." That was/is a problem for humanity, but not for God.

And that is a discussion for another op .









* These are not examples of relevance in the typical lapsarian debate, which is more focused on the relevance of creation, the fall, election, etc. Those examples were deliberately chosen to rhetorically highlight the problem.
** Or at least time as it exists in creation.
.

 

[John Bauer]

You say that other theologians (such as Geerhardus Vos, whom you quoted) have said essentially the same thing I do. So, if you accept what he says, and presumably, then, what I said in similar terms as they, why do you consider [supralapsarianism]? Is it not humanly ordering God's decrees?

First, you are being inconsistent, which makes it difficult to track your meaning. On the one hand you speak of God's one "decree," but on the other hand you speak of God's "decrees." You switch from singular to plural and back again. Vos said two things that mirror statements you have made and with which I agree: (1) "There are in God not many decrees, but it is one, single, completely present decree." (2) The "differing parts of God's decree" are not temporally ordered, as that would be "incompatible with his eternity."

Second, it is a logical ordering of God's decree, not a human ordering—unless you presuppose that logic is a human invention, a premise that I would strongly oppose (but is beyond the scope of this thread).

That being said, how are these two points made by Vos supposed to complicate my acceptance of a supralapsarian view?

I don't see how God's decrees can be ordered logically.

God's decree is ordered logically by the necessity of the case. For example, the eternal intratrinitarian plan of redemption (x) presupposes something from which to redeem and someone in need of redemption (y). In other words, x is unintelligible apart from y—or, in philosophical terms, y is the necessary precondition of x.

Yet both x and y are simultaneous constituents of God's one eternal decree. When Reformed theology speaks of the logical ordering of God's decree, it does not mean that God deliberated sequentially. Rather, it refers to relations of logical priority within a single, eternal act of divine willing. The decree is one, simple, indivisible act in God. There is no process, no composition, no succession of thoughts in him.

"Indivisible? But are we not dividing it here?"

We do not divide God's decree in itself. We acknowledge that to us, as finite beings bound by discursive reasoning, the decree must be considered in its constituent relations if we are to speak of it at all. This distinction is standard in Reformed theology: The decree in se (as it is in God) is simple and indivisible, but the decree quoad nos (as revealed to us and contemplated by us) can be distinguished in its logical relations and dependencies.

So, we speak of a "logical order" not because God’s decree is composed of parts, but because human understanding requires us to contemplate ordered relations of purpose within that singular divine act.

Think of it this way: God wills the end together with the means, and the end is what grounds the means or makes sense of them. Nothing yet has happened sequentially, so there is no temporal priority. This is strictly a logical priority, where x does not make sense without reference to y—that is, y is the ground or reason of x. His decree is not a web of disconnected choices but a unified, purposeful plan that centers on Christ. And Reformed theology affirms this because scripture reveals a God who acts with intentionality, not randomly or arbitrarily (Isa. 46:10; Rom. 9:22–23; Eph. 1:11).

The cross of Christ was not an afterthought or a reaction to sin; Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, which shows that sin was ordained for the sake of displaying the glory of the crucified and risen Son—a supralapsarian insight for you, there.

It is almost as though lapsarians are saying that the one THING follows another logically (I have no problem with that), but then they call the THING, "decree".

I don't think they do. Vos certainly did not, for example. He called each of the things "differing parts" of God's one eternal decree.

Let me approach it like this —Are we capable of logically ordering God's thinking?

I don't accept the premise of your question. It is not as if we are inventing and imposing a structure onto God's eternal mind. That would be the height of presumption. But Reformed theology maintains that God himself has revealed his decree in such a way that it reflects purposeful relationships—means (e.g., election) serving ends (e.g., redemption), and all centered on the glory of Christ.

This logical ordering is not a human construct imposed on God from below; it is a divine disclosure accommodated to our finite understanding. Scripture itself gives us categories of purpose, subordination, fulfillment, and so forth. For example, when Paul says in Romans 9:22–23 that God has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction in order to make known the wealth of his glory on the objects of mercy he prepared beforehand for glory (Rom. 9:22-23), that is a revealed ordering of purpose.

So, we are not ordering God's thinking. We are receiving the structure of God's eternal decree as God himself has chosen to make it known. We are not trying to map God's inner life from the outside; we are thinking God's thoughts after him in the way he has revealed them to us.

 

[Hazelelponi]

@Carbon - if you were curious what I was doing earlier, this helps illustrate:

Potential Areas of Confusion

Supralapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism:

Confusion: The terms sound technical, and their difference (election before vs. after the fall) may seem abstract.

Simplification: Supra sees God planning election first to show Christ’s glory, with sin as a means (Rev. 13:8). Infra sees God responding to sin with election (Rom. 5:8). Both affirm one decree and Christ’s centrality (Col. 1:16).

For You: Think of supra as God saying, “I’ll save to shine,” and infra as, “I’ll save because they fell.” Both honor God’s plan.

Logical vs. Temporal Order:

Confusion: “Logical priority” (e.g., sin before redemption) sounds like a timeline, but it’s not.

Simplification: It’s like a recipe: flour “logically” precedes bread, but God’s decree is instant, not step-by-step (Ps. 33:9: “He spoke, and it came to be”).

For You: DialecticSkeptic means God’s plan makes sense (sin enables redemption), but it’s all one eternal “yes” in His mind.

Quoad Nos vs. In Se:

Confusion: Latin terms (“as revealed to us” vs. “in God”) may feel academic.

Simplification: In se is God’s perfect will, beyond us (Deut. 29:29). Quoad nos is how He explains it in Scripture (Rom. 9:22–23), like a parent simplifying for a child.

For You: We trust God’s Word, not our brains, to understand His plan.

Vos and Lapsarianism:

Confusion: Why does DialecticSkeptic cite Vos (against multiple decrees) but defend supralapsarianism?

Simplification: Vos’ “one decree” supports supra’s view that election drives the plan, with sin serving Christ’s glory, not fragmenting God’s will.

For You: DialecticSkeptic uses Vos to say, “God’s plan is one, but supra makes sense of it.”

DialecticSkeptic’s reliance on Romans 9:22–23, Ephesians 1:11, and Revelation 13:8 mirrors your approach. If you’re clear on DialecticSkeptic’s points, confirm which aspect resonated (e.g., supralapsarianism, logical order) or confused you (e.g., Vos, quoad nos).

.......

When I am unclear I get clarification, simplifications, and chase down systematic theologies to read, it's enjoyable. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding clearly.

 

[makesends]

First, you are being inconsistent, which makes it difficult to track your meaning. On the one hand you speak of God's one "decree," but on the other hand you speak of God's "decrees." You switch from singular to plural and back again.

Vos said two things that mirror statements you have made and with which I agree: (1) "There are in God not many decrees, but it is one, single, completely present decree." (2) The "differing parts of God's decree" are not temporally ordered, as that would be "incompatible with his eternity."

Second, it is a logical ordering of God's decree, not a human ordering—unless you presuppose that logic is a human invention, a premise that I would strongly oppose (but is beyond the scope of this thread).

That being said, how are these two points made by Vos supposed to complicate my acceptance of a supralapsarian view?

God's decree is ordered logically by the necessity of the case. For example, the eternal intratrinitarian plan of redemption (x) presupposes something from which to redeem and someone in need of redemption (y). In other words, x is unintelligible apart from y—or, in philosophical terms, y is the necessary precondition of x.

Yet both x and y are simultaneous constituents of God's one eternal decree. When Reformed theology speaks of the logical ordering of God's decree, it does not mean that God deliberated sequentially. Rather, it refers to relations of logical priority within a single, eternal act of divine willing. The decree is one, simple, indivisible act in God. There is no process, no composition, no succession of thoughts in him.

"Indivisible? But are we not dividing it here?"

We do not divide God's decree in itself. We acknowledge that to us, as finite beings bound by discursive reasoning, the decree must be considered in its constituent relations if we are to speak of it at all. This distinction is standard in Reformed theology: The decree in se (as it is in God) is simple and indivisible, but the decree quoad nos (as revealed to us and contemplated by us) can be distinguished in its logical relations and dependencies.

So, we speak of a "logical order" not because God’s decree is composed of parts, but because human understanding requires us to contemplate ordered relations of purpose within that singular divine act.

Think of it this way: God wills the end together with the means, and the end is what grounds the means or makes sense of them. Nothing yet has happened sequentially, so there is no temporal priority. This is strictly a logical priority, where x does not make sense without reference to y—that is, y is the ground or reason of x. His decree is not a web of disconnected choices but a unified, purposeful plan that centers on Christ. And Reformed theology affirms this because scripture reveals a God who acts with intentionality, not randomly or arbitrarily (Isa. 46:10; Rom. 9:22–23; Eph. 1:11).

The cross of Christ was not an afterthought or a reaction to sin; Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, which shows that sin was ordained for the sake of displaying the glory of the crucified and risen Son—a supralapsarian insight for you, there.

I don't think they do. Vos certainly did not, for example. He called each of the things "differing parts" of God's one eternal decree.

I don't accept the premise of your question. It is not as if we are inventing and imposing a structure onto God's eternal mind. That would be the height of presumption. But Reformed theology maintains that God himself has revealed his decree in such a way that it reflects purposeful relationships—means (e.g., election) serving ends (e.g., redemption), and all centered on the glory of Christ.

This logical ordering is not a human construct imposed on God from below; it is a divine disclosure accommodated to our finite understanding. Scripture itself gives us categories of purpose, subordination, fulfillment, and so forth. For example, when Paul says in Romans 9:22–23 that God has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction in order to make known the wealth of his glory on the objects of mercy he prepared beforehand for glory (Rom. 9:22-23), that is a revealed ordering of purpose.

So, we are not ordering God's thinking. We are receiving the structure of God's eternal decree as God himself has chosen to make it known. We are not trying to map God's inner life from the outside; we are thinking God's thoughts after him in the way he has revealed them to us.

I spoke of his decree sometimes as his decrees, because, according to my reading of several proponents and analysts of both sides, lapsarianism speaks of the plural—God's decrees. Simply that, so that when I argue against the whole notion of ordering his decrees, I am not arguing against the fact that his decree is one. As I thought my post made clear, if lapsarianism was ordering what God DID, as opposed to ordering God's THINKING, it is ordering OUR view of things, or OUR doctrine, and I have no problem with the consideration of it anymore than I do of discussing the ordo salutis.

Your changing of my word, 'lapsarianism', into ['supralapsarianism'], demonstrates a little, I think, of why you misunderstand me. I am not arguing against your position in the matter, but simply against the notion that we can order God's decrees/decree. As I said, if the discussion has to do with logically ordering the various components of what God decreed, I have no problem with doing so.

If lapsarianism is only an attempt to be "thinking God's thoughts after him in the way he has revealed them to us.", then great! But that is not how I have heard it presented.

And, I hope you will be pleased to know, I, (and @Josheb has said the same, as I remember), would hold to Supra-lapsarianism, if lapasarianism was about what God did, instead of an attempt to order God's decree/decrees. And that is because he had in mind the whole business from the beginning.

My apologies to the rest of you for taking this tangent, but it does feed back into the subject of the thread, as it deals with "The Surprising Logic of Redemptive History".