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".

 

[John Bauer]

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.

I have been substituting your word "lapsarianism" with a more precise term for two reasons:

1. Lexical clarity: Lapsarianism, as a noun, is a vague and unnecessary neologism. It doesn't name a doctrinal stance, nor does it correspond to any coherent theological position or system. There is no "–ism" about the fall per se. The word functions meaningfully only as an adjective, like "lapsarian views" or "lapsarian controversy." Supralapsarianism names a specific and historically defined position within Reformed theology, whereas lapsarianism doesn't point to any doctrinal position.

2. Theological engagement: You are, in fact, arguing against my position by arguing "against the notion that we can order God's decree." You are arguing against infralapsarianism, too, but my position is definitely a target. So, when I replace "lapsarianism" with "supralapsarianism," it isn't a misunderstanding but rather a clarification (especially because lapsarianism doesn't point to anything). This is about helping us avoid misrepresenting the debate.

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.

I have no vested interest in you embracing a supralapsarian position. I happen to think it would simplify and fortify your theology, but that is beside the point. I am happy just to have you understand the position you're critiquing. When you equate logical ordering with temporal ordering (whether explicitly or implicitly), it suggests a category confusion that obscures what the supralapsarian view actually asserts.

Anyway, we now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Hazelelponi]

, 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.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-seed-of-the-woman.2855/
My below post is answering @makesends in this thread using my posted concern from Carbons thread to anchor with practicality.

Like you.@makesends I was Supra before hearing or understanding the word. Something you said when I was first a member here was along the lines of, "we know things we don't have words for and can't express". This is true, (you know) and this subject is one of them. The problem is when we don't have the words we don't have ordered thinking either.

These, supra and infra lapsarian orders are some of the words, below used in practical application. The individual knows the right instinctually, but might know other verses also which give pause because they don't know the direction to take. We need the order which helps give a more confident direction. Supra is the confidence that comes from Him, ordered so all our thinking is correct at every turn.

Scenario: A believer is passionate about sharing the gospel with unbelievers in a sinful, hostile world. However, they struggle with the fear that their own past sins—or the sins of those they witness to—might dishonor God’s holy Name, especially since they’re associating with Christ’s “seed” (Gen. 3:15; Gal. 3:29). And this person wonders, “How can I, a former sinner, be linked to Christ without profaning His holiness?”

How a Supralapsarian View Helps Think More Rightly About God:

A supralapsarian perspective reassures this believer that God’s eternal decree prioritizes His glory through the election and redemption of sinners in Christ, with sin and the fall serving that purpose. This view transforms their approach to evangelism and holiness, helping them think rightly about God in the following ways:


1.) God’s Glory Shines Through Redeemed Sinners:

Scriptural Anchor: “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:4).

Application: In evangelism, the believer can confidently share that God’s plan from eternity was to redeem sinners for His glory, not to be profaned by their sin. Supralapsarianism emphasizes that God decreed election first, knowing sin would enter the world, to display His grace through Christ’s redemptive work (Rev. 13:8). The believer’s past sin, or the sin of those they witness to, doesn’t diminish God’s holiness but magnifies His mercy when sinners are saved. For example, sharing the gospel with a struggling addict, the believer can say, “God chose you in Christ before the world began to show His glory through your redemption, not to be dishonored by your sin.”

Theological Insight: Spurgeon and Baucham stress that God’s grace shines brightest against the backdrop of sin. Supralapsarianism assures us that sin was ordained as a means to manifest Christ’s glory, not to profane God.


2.) Christ’s Victory Over Sin Secures God’s Holiness:

Scriptural Anchor: “He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15).

Application: The Protoevangelium promises Christ’s triumph over Satan, which includes victory over the sin that once defined the elect (1 John 3:8). In evangelism, the believer can rest in the truth that Christ’s redemptive work ensures that our association with Him as His “seed” doesn’t profane God but glorifies Him through our transformation. A believer might encourage a skeptic, saying, “Your sins don’t disqualify you; Christ’s victory was planned before the world to make you holy in Him.” This view counters the concern by affirming that Christ’s holiness covers our sinfulness, ensuring God’s name is honored (1 Pet. 1:15–16).

Theological Insight: Washer and Sproul emphasize that Christ’s atonement secures the holiness of the elect, aligning with the supralapsarian view that redemption was God’s primary aim.


3.) God’s Eternal Purpose Transcends Our Sin:

Scriptural Anchor: “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory?” (Rom. 9:22–23).

Application: A supralapsarian view reminds the evangelist that God’s decree includes both the reprobate (“seed of the serpent”) and the elect (“seed of the woman”), with sin serving to highlight His glory in mercy and justice. When sharing the gospel, the believer can boldly proclaim that God’s holiness is not threatened by human sin because His eternal plan accounts for it. For instance, witnessing to someone hostile to the faith, the believer can trust that God’s glory will prevail, whether through their salvation or judgment, without being profaned. This frees them from fear of dishonoring God

Theological Insight: Calvin and Berkhof note that God’s glory is the end of His decree, and supralapsarianism ensures that even sin serves this purpose, as seen in @Carbon thread"s corporate view of the “seed.”


4.) Holiness Reflects God’s Redemptive Plan:

Scriptural Anchor: “But as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’” (1 Pet. 1:15–16).

Application: The practical concern about profaning God’s name through sinful association is addressed by supralapsarianism’s focus on God’s purpose to make the elect holy in Christ (Eph. 1:4). In evangelism, the believer is motivated to live a holy life, reflecting God’s character, knowing their transformation is part of God’s eternal decree. When others see their changed life, it glorifies God rather than profanes Him. Using ones own experiences/failings juxtaposed with Christ's victory nvites others to the gospel without fear of dishonoring God.

Theological Insight: Grudem and Sproul highlight that sanctification is part of God’s eternal purpose, ensuring that the elect’s association with Christ honors His name.


Practical Outcome:

In this evangelism scenario, a supralapsarian view helps the believer think more rightly about God by affirming:

• God’s glory is magnified through the redemption of sinners, not profaned by their sin (Eph. 1:4–5).
• Christ’s victory over Satan and sin ensures that our association with Him honors God (Gen. 3:15; 1 John 3:8).
• Sin and the fall were ordained to serve God’s purpose, not to threaten His holiness (Rom. 9:22–23).
• Our call to holiness reflects God’s eternal plan to make us like Christ, glorifying His name (1 Pet. 1:15–16).

This perspective emboldens the believer to share the gospel confidently, knowing that God’s eternal decree ensures His holiness is upheld, even as sinners are called to become part of Christ’s “seed.” It addresses the concern by showing that our pre-salvation sin, while real, is subsumed under Christ’s redemptive victory, preventing any profanation of God’s Name.


@Carbon thread discussion of Genesis 3:15 highlights the covenant of grace, where God distinguishes the elect (Christ and His people) from the reprobate (Satan’s “seed”). Any concern about profaning God’s name through association with Christ reflects a deep reverence for His holiness (1 Pet. 1:15–16). A supralapsarian view integrates this by emphasizing that God decreed election to ensure His people’s holiness, with the fall (and our sin) serving to magnify Christ’s glory (Rev. 13:8). The thread’s corporate view of the “seed” (Christ and the elect) aligns all history as centered on Christ’s redemptive triumph, which protects God’s honor.

Amillennial eschatology (Riddlebarger’s emphasis) further connects, as it views the church’s warfare against Satan’s “seed” as part of Christ’s present reign, culminating in His final victory. Supralapsarianism reinforces this by assuring the concerned that association with Christ, even as a former sinner, glorifies God because it was His eternal purpose to redeem and sanctify.


Conclusion

A supralapsarian view helps us think more rightly about God in evangelism by affirming that His glory and holiness are upheld through the redemption of sinners, as planned before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4; Rev. 13:8).Any concern about profaning God’s name is alleviated by recognizing that Christ’s victory (Gen. 3:15) and our sanctification (1 Pet. 1:15–16) ensure that our association with Him glorifies, not dishonors, God. This emboldens us to share the gospel, trusting in God’s sovereign, Christ-centered decree.

May we continue to honor Christ in all we do (1 Cor. 10:31) because God promised not to put us to open shame (Romans 5:5) May His power be perfected in our weakness.... Let the war begin.

Or something like that anyway. I like the thinking.

 

[Josheb]

I have been substituting your word "lapsarianism" with a more precise term for two reasons:

1. Lexical clarity: Lapsarianism, as a noun, is a vague and unnecessary neologism. It doesn't name a doctrinal stance, nor does it correspond to any coherent theological position or system. There is no "–ism" about the fall per se. The word functions meaningfully only as an adjective, like "lapsarian views" or "lapsarian controversy." Supralapsarianism names a specific and historically defined position within Reformed theology, whereas lapsarianism doesn't point to any doctrinal position.

Whether a neologism or not, lapsarianism (small "l," speaks of the issue in general, just as "theism" speaks of the matters pertaining to divine entities. Judaism would be a particular theological viewpoint within theism. (Modern) Buddhism would be a non-theistic viewpoint within theism. Polytheism would be another viewpoint within the overarching matter of ~isms pertaining to the nature of God and/or the religious expression thereof. Similarly, if we were discussing different forms of government a variety of posters might assert monarchies, oligarchies, democracy, republics or any of the other governmentisms that fall within the overarching concept of government. We do the same thing with many doctrines within which different viewpoints exist. The suffix ~ism is not always used but we still often discuss specific viewpoints within an overarching concept or doctrine.

The word "lapsarianism" can be Googled. The term is defined as "Lapsarianism, a term derived from the Latin word "lapsus" (fall), refers to different views on the logical order of God's decrees, particularly concerning the fall of humanity, election, and reprobation. It explores how God's decisions regarding humanity's state and destiny relate to each other in His eternal plan" (highlight the AI's). GotQuestions opens its article on the subject with, "These three theological terms, discussed among Calvinist thinkers, deal with God’s predestination of certain individuals to be saved. The term lapsarian is related to the English word lapse; mankind’s fall into sin was a “lapse” in that it was a “slip” or a “falling” from their original state of innocence" (emphasis mine). Supralapsarianism would be one viewpoint, and infralapsarianism would be another viewpoint. Sublapsarianism would be a third viewpoint. All three seek to address the logical order of God's decrees.



That said, I'll stay out of the current dispute with the other poster other than to reiterate my position since I keep getting mentioned. I do not believe God authored the fall and/or created people prior to the fall for the sole purpose of eternal condemnation. Both positions are incorrect. Both positions contradict the whole of scripture and are inconsistent with Augustinian/Calvinist soteriology. I have stated I think the entire matter of lapsarianism is suspect. The debate may be useful as a construct for understanding the possibilities (logically and practically) of creation relevant too salvation but, as GotQuestions puts it, "the answers to the lapsarian issue are best left up to God" (again, emphasis is mine). However, I also find that statement a bit of a cop out, an avoidant response, because the exercise of considering the matter can be worthwhile as long as we do not commit hubris or create divisive doctrine over what ultimately cannot be known. Personally, I believe Jesus was coming into creation whether the fall happened or not. The "fall," therefore is irrelevant to God's decree, both logically and practically.



Carry on.