Divine Good Pleasure

Greetings to all my brothers from all denominations.

I might be biting more off than I can chew due to my current restraints of time. However, this topic came up in another debate and wanted to talk about it.

Regarding divine good pleasure, God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (Heb 13:8). The reason that one can have confidence in our Lord is because He is righteous, pure, and eternal. We know that evil will never be good and good will never be evil. God’s eternal character is…well…eternal.

It seems to me that if one claims “God can do what He pleases”, that this claim should come with some restrictions. Not restrictions on God but on those interpreting scripture and making claims from their interpretations. In other words, there should be a proper template on one’s thoughts, the theologian's thoughts, regarding what it means that God “does what He pleases”.

God the Father is consistent, He is consistently fair, consistently judicial, consistently loving, consistently righteous. This steadfast immutability is not an abstract theological concept, but the correct biblical understanding of the characteristics of God and their relationship with each other. It is the foundation in scripture that provides us with the understanding of the immovable foundation for His faithfulness, trustworthiness, and reliability Christians can count on.

So that being said, one should not created divine dissonance within one's theology when claiming 'God's good pleasure'.

Now let's take this and apply it to what I think is a common error of the Supralapsarian model of God's decrees used by the High Calvinists.

The Supralapsarian Model creates divine dissonance through the claim of 'God's good pleasure'. In the Supralapsarian model, the first intent of creation is to decree an elect and a reprobate.

1. God sees a pool of pristine and blameless beings in His sight
2. God then decrees that “some” that are pristine and blameless in His sight to be reprobate.
C. Therefore, God is now logically forced to make some of these pristine beings, reprobate. For he had decreed that some be reprobate.
C. God decrees a fall.

God's good pleasure has now been formulated in a way that creates divine dissonance within a theology. That is, God has now been logically forced to create a fall and thereby logically shown to be the first cause of sin. But this implication is clearly false, biblically. Therefore, the use of the concept of 'God's good pleasure' to justify election and reprobation coming before the fall creates divine dissonance.

Any thoughts?

peace to your brothers

Paleouss said:

1. God sees a pool of pristine and blameless beings in His sight

Click to expand...

God purposely chose there would be the elect and the reprobate before there was a pool of anything. God's decrees preceded creation of the universe and everyone and everything in it.

Therefore, there was never some "pool of pristine and blameless beings in His sight". The elect were created as elect beings(even though born spiritually dead) and the reprobate were created as reprobates(and born spiritually dead).

Greetings Ken. Thank you for your wisdom regarding my post.

KenH said:

God purposely chose there would be the elect and the reprobate before there was a pool of anything. God's decrees preceded creation of the universe and everyone and everything in it.

Click to expand...

Referring to the Supralapsarian model

First Intent
#1. God’s decree to predestine the elect to eternal life and to predestine the reprobate to damnation for their sins,

Do you hold that the predestination of the elect, #1, is of particular individuals or only a place holder? If a place holder, then you are not a Supralapsarian so the argument doesn't work.

Per the Supralapsarian model, the election of particular individuals is decreed in #1. It is the first intent. Also, the predestination of particular individuals to reprobation is decreed in the first decree. And yes, this is before creation and time.

So God decrees in #1 that Joe, Dave and Bill are predestined to be elect. God degrees in #1 that Mike, Alex and Bob are predestined to be reprobate. This is the 'pool' of mankind to be created (Joe, Dave, Bill, Mike, Alex, Bob).

However, the reprobate at this point, #1, have not sinned even in the order of decrees (yes, still before creation). In the Supralapsarian model, God doesn't decree a fall until decree #3.

So within the model, Mike, Alex and Bob are predestined for reprobation despite them not sinning within the order of decrees, yet. It seems logical to conclude that if they are considered in the order of decrees before sinning in decree #3, then Mike, Alex and Bod as of decree #1 are 'pristine' in God's sight. For they have not sinned in the mind of God as of decree #1.

I ran out of time.



Peace to you brother.

Paleouss said:

then Mike, Alex and Bod as of decree #1 are 'pristine' in God's sight.

Click to expand...

Nope. God is not bound by time like His creation is. He sees everything at once - all the way back in eternity and all the way forward in eternity.

Paleouss said:

Greetings to all my brothers from all denominations.

Click to expand...

Just letting you know that if you want NON-Baptists to comment, then post in the "All" forums, not the Baptist-Only sections.

Paleouss said:

God sees a pool of pristine and blameless beings in His sight

Click to expand...

I do not think that this is #1.
I also do not think that this exists.
Adam, the first man, was certainly not perfect … merely “very good” … and he chose sin.

#1: I think God’s plan saw ONE pristine and blameless being (Jesus Christ) that would bring glory to God through a plan of redemption that created a “people” of pristine and blameless beings where none had existed before.

KenH said:

Nope. God is not bound by time like His creation is. He sees everything at once - all the way back in eternity and all the way forward in eternity.

Click to expand...

Hi Ken. Thank you for your posts.

You didn't really answer my question of whether you are a Supralapsarian or not.

It seems to me that if you are in fact a Supralapsarian then by definition you cannot hold to a strict "He sees everything at once" and that there is then no logical order of decrees. For the very assertion of the Supralapsarian order of decrees is that there is in fact a logical order even though God may "see everything at once".

The assertion of the Supralapsarian is that the elect and reprobate are the first intent of creation, logically. This assertion of the Supralapsarian then leads to something like … “the reason He then thought to create the world and ordain a fall was so that the wisdom and glory of His decision to elect some and not others would be displayed.” -- Berry Cooper.

So are you a Supralapsarian?

Peace to you brother

From Ligonier Ministries

The two words are supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism.

The “laps” bit in each of those words may help you to remember what they mean. Because lapsus is from the Latin meaning “fall.” So these two words address a question related to the fall. And the question is this: When did God decide to elect people to salvation—was it before God made the decision to create the world and permit the fall, or was it after His decision to create the world and permit the fall? Those who think it was before are supralapsarians. And those who think it was after are infralapsarians.

Just to be clear, this isn’t a question about the order that things happened in time; it’s a question of what order these things were logically decided upon in God’s mind. And while there might be a hint of frostiness between supralapsarians and infralapsarians when they bump into each other at parties—great parties they must be—people holding these two positions have a great deal in common, and both fall within the parameters of Reformed theology.

After all, they both accept the biblical truth that God decreed all His redemptive acts before He ever created the world and before the fall ever happened.

But logically, what came first in God’s mind? The decree of election and reprobation, or the decree to create the world and permit the fall?

If you take the supralapsarian position, literally meaning “before the fall,” chances are you have God’s sovereignty uppermost in your mind. Before thinking of creating the universe and ordaining a fall, God had first thought to ordain some for life and some for death. The reason He then thought to create the world and ordain a fall was so that the wisdom and glory of His decision to elect some and not others would be displayed.

But if you take the infralapsarian position, literally meaning “after the fall,” chances are you have God’s mercy uppermost in your mind. It was after God thought of creating the universe and ordaining a fall that He purposed to show His mercy by electing some to salvation. Infralapsarians would argue, if they cornered you at that party I was talking about, that it makes more logical sense for God to think of election after there are hypothetical people to elect—after He decreed that there would be a fall. Without first decreeing a fall, why would God think to save anyone from that fall?

For what it’s worth, it’s this latter position, the infralapsarian one, that has been held by most Reformed theologians across history.

But there are notable exceptions, for example the Puritan Thomas Goodwin, who held to what has been called Christological Supralapsarianism. The end of all God’s decrees is the union of the elect with Christ, which is consummated in heaven. The last thing that will happen in time—that consummation with Christ in heaven—was the first thing that God intended in His mind: the final union of the elect with Him. Or to put it another way, God’s supreme motive, which lies behind the ordering of all His decrees, is simply the glory of Jesus Christ.

I know, heady stuff. And again, both positions are consistent with Scripture—you can make a reasonable case for both.

For me, THIS ...

"Christological Supralapsarianism.
The end of all God’s decrees is the union of the elect with Christ, which is consummated in heaven. The last thing that will happen in time—that consummation with Christ in heaven—was the first thing that God intended in His mind: the final union of the elect with Him. Or to put it another way, God’s supreme motive, which lies behind the ordering of all His decrees, is simply the glory of Jesus Christ."

Greetings

atpollard said:

Adam, the first man, was certainly not perfect … merely “very good” … and he chose sin.

Click to expand...

I am taking your quotes in reverse order, sorta.

To be clear, by 'pristine' I meant without sin. I did not intend any implication regarding divine perfection.

In other words, the complaint I am leveling upon the Supralapsarian order of decrees is that in the first intent that is suggested within the model. God reprobates without considering justice. For in the first intent of the Supralapsarian model, those who are to be reprobated have not yet logically sinned. Yet God predestined them to be reprobate. To me, a clear biblical and logical error.

atpollard said:

I do not think that this is #1.

#1: I think God’s plan saw ONE pristine and blameless being (Jesus Christ) that would bring glory to God through a plan of redemption that created a “people” of pristine and blameless beings where none had existed before.

Click to expand...

I agree in that, the Supralapsarian model has way too many biblical contradictions.

I, myself, think that if we are to contemplate the logical order of God's decrees before creation. Then the first intent, that is the first biblical intent that is suggested in the Bible is...

My Sublapsarian order of decrees
#1. God the Father’s decree to create for God the Son and that God the Son be the purposeful end of creation, that which all creation culminates toward and in.

Scripture tells us that God the Son is the Alpha (Rev 22:13, 1:8, 1:11, 21:6), the beginning. But Scripture also tells us that God the Son is the Omega (Rev 22:13,1:8, 1:11, 21:6), the purposeful end of this world that is to ‘unite all things’ (Eph 1:10) to Him, for Him (Col 1:16, Rom 11:36, Heb 2:10). Therefore, the purposeful end, that is the object of final end that was decreed from the precipice of creation, is that all creation culminates toward its intended end, and that is God the Son (Eph 1:10, Rom 11:36, Rev 22:13, 1:8, 1:11, 21:6).

All that was created, all that is, and all that will be, is made “for Him” (Col 1:16, Rom 11:36, Heb 2:10). As Augustine wrote, “Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.”

Keep seeking God's truth (Prov 2)

Paleouss said:

So are you a Supralapsarian?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am a supralapsarian, maybe a very poor one, but I am one.

atpollard said:

For me, THIS ...

"Christological Supralapsarianism.
The end of all God’s decrees is the union of the elect with Christ, which is consummated in heaven. The last thing that will happen in time—that consummation with Christ in heaven—was the first thing that God intended in His mind: the final union of the elect with Him. Or to put it another way, God’s supreme motive, which lies behind the ordering of all His decrees, is simply the glory of Jesus Christ."

Click to expand...

Hello again, atpollard. Glad to talk with you again, my friend.

I presume that by you saying "for me, THIS...". You are indicating that you are taking the Supralapsarian side of things and providing the argument of "that which is first in intention is last in execution...that which is last in execution is first in intention".

As an overall view
1. The origins of this logical template you just provided to give authority to the Supralapsarian model was first introduced by Aristotle, later taken up by Thomas Aquinas, used by Theodore Beza and is also found in such works as Twisse, to name a few.

“The end is not only what man arrives at in the order of execution and time. It is also what moves man first in the order of thought. It is an end temporally but it is a beginning spiritually. So what man ends up with at last is what has moved man from the very beginning and at first. The end is thus the causal beginning”.
– Thomas Aquinas

2. The logical conclusion that is reached by using this template is that the intent of creation is for the elect. An assertion I deny and hold that the Bible teaches that the intent of creation is not for the elect but for the Son of God. (I provide some verses for this assertion in the other post.

The argument against the "last in execution is first in intention" as it is used by the Supralapsarian model is long. My apologies in advance.

According to Thomas Aquinas, when speaking of ‘intention’ and execution’, “the principle with respect to intention is the ultimate end; the principle with respect to execution is the first means related to the end."

• The principle of intention relates to the ultimate end
• The principle of execution relates to the first means that are related to the ultimate end

In other words, the underlying principle that defines ‘intention’ is that it refers to the ultimate end, i.e., the first intention has the final intended end in mind. Additionally, the underlying principle that defines ‘execution’ is that it is related to the ‘means’ toward that final intended end.

Theologians then took this dictum of “last in execution is first in intention” and tried to support the eternal decrees of God from the logical order of executions in history.

Understanding that intentions are related to goals and end goals, and executions are related to real world events toward that end goal. One quickly wonders, at least I did, if there can be some error in what the final intended end might be within the Supralapsarian model if one used the template of “that which is last in execution is first in intention”. How so, one might ask? Well, the problem is that what the principle of last execution doest do is accurately distinguish whether the last action refers back to (1) the first intent, or if it refers to (2) an intermediate intent.
To what does the last in execution refer?
1. The first intent
OR
2. An intermediate first intent

If the last-in-execution is a product of an intermediate first intent, then the overall first intent cannot be so defined as the last in execution. In other words, a final execution is either in conformity with (A) the object of final end, which then makes that very object of final end that which refers back to the overall first intention; or (B) the final execution is an end in itself, and therefore the final execution properly refers back as the overall first intention.

What the Supralapsarians have traditionally and consistently done is assert that the last in execution is the end in itself, which is (B) above. This makes the final execution refer back to the overall first intention and not an intermediate first intent. But is this true?

I am now going to cut and paste a logical argument that demonstrates how the Surpalapsarian model is in error. Again, my apologies for the length.


The Mind Experiment: A companion for a son

• Bob creates two ‘smart’ androids that are similar to him in many ways.
  • These smart androids can sense, act, be in control, and make decisions based on acquired data. In other words, the smart androids are capable of learning from past experiences to apply them to current situations.
• Bob constantly provides energy to his creations
  • These androids that Bob has created cannot sustain their own power for themselves. So not only did Bob create them but Bob must constantly provide energy to uphold them, sustaining them so they can learn and grow.
• Bob plans certain interactions between both androids and between himself and the androids. This is done to build their database with experiential data
  • The smart androids learn from past successes and errors from interactions with Bob. These past experiences of the androids between themselves and with Bob help them become what Bob intends them to be.
• Bob makes small adjustments to the android after every experience.
  • After every experience that Bob has with the androids, Bob makes small adjustments to the androids. These adjustments combined with the experiences, progresses the androids, little by little, toward the completion that Bob intends for the android.
• Both androids become defective.
• Bob decides to repair one android, the other he decides to leave as defective.
  • Bob thinks that there are good experiences that can be had between the fixed android and the defective android that will progress the chosen fixed android toward Bob’s intended end.
• Bob continues providing experiences between androids and between himself and the androids.
• Bob makes the final adjustment to the chosen one, transforming it to a sentient android, the other he scraps.
• What was Bob’s first intention?

Now, if one follows the template of logic used for the traditional Supralapsarian model. Then one would conclude that Bob’s first intention was for the android, for the last in execution is making one android to be sentient and the other android to be scrap. It focuses on the ‘final adjustment’.

Supralapsarianism suggests: Bob’s first intention is to choose one android to be sentient and choose the other android to be scrap.

Based on the Supralapsarian dictum, Bob created for the android. But as we reveal the true purpose of Bob’s creation. We find that the Supralapsarian template falls into error when applying it to our thought experiment.

Bob’s Actual First Intent:

1. Bob thinks his son needs a companion
2. Bob decides to show his love by creating for his son.
   1. Bob decides his creation is to find its ultimate end in companionship with his son.
   2. Someone his son can love and love him back.

If in fact, Bob’s first intent was to create for his son, so as to have a companion for his son. Then it follows that Bob created for his son, not for the android as the supralapsarian model of ‘last in execution is first in intention’ dictates. The intent to create an android was for his son; the planned experiences, for his son; the energy provided, the time, for his son; the decision to keep one defective android so that the other could learn, for his son. This was the true purpose, that is the first intent, because the object of final end was ‘his son’, and therefore the true object of final intended end.

Peace to you brother

Paleouss said:

Hello again, atpollard. Glad to talk with you again, my friend.

I presume that by you saying "for me, THIS...". You are indicating that you are taking the Supralapsarian side of things and providing the argument of "that which is first in intention is last in execution...that which is last in execution is first in intention".

As an overall view
1. The origins of this logical template you just provided to give authority to the Supralapsarian model was first introduced by Aristotle, later taken up by Thomas Aquinas, used by Theodore Beza and is also found in such works as Twisse, to name a few.

“The end is not only what man arrives at in the order of execution and time. It is also what moves man first in the order of thought. It is an end temporally but it is a beginning spiritually. So what man ends up with at last is what has moved man from the very beginning and at first. The end is thus the causal beginning”.
– Thomas Aquinas

2. The logical conclusion that is reached by using this template is that the intent of creation is for the elect. An assertion I deny and hold that the Bible teaches that the intent of creation is not for the elect but for the Son of God. (I provide some verses for this assertion in the other post.

The argument against the "last in execution is first in intention" as it is used by the Supralapsarian model is long. My apologies in advance.

According to Thomas Aquinas, when speaking of ‘intention’ and execution’, “the principle with respect to intention is the ultimate end; the principle with respect to execution is the first means related to the end."

• The principle of intention relates to the ultimate end
• The principle of execution relates to the first means that are related to the ultimate end

In other words, the underlying principle that defines ‘intention’ is that it refers to the ultimate end, i.e., the first intention has the final intended end in mind. Additionally, the underlying principle that defines ‘execution’ is that it is related to the ‘means’ toward that final intended end.

Theologians then took this dictum of “last in execution is first in intention” and tried to support the eternal decrees of God from the logical order of executions in history.

Understanding that intentions are related to goals and end goals, and executions are related to real world events toward that end goal. One quickly wonders, at least I did, if there can be some error in what the final intended end might be within the Supralapsarian model if one used the template of “that which is last in execution is first in intention”. How so, one might ask? Well, the problem is that what the principle of last execution doest do is accurately distinguish whether the last action refers back to (1) the first intent, or if it refers to (2) an intermediate intent.
To what does the last in execution refer?
1. The first intent
OR
2. An intermediate first intent

If the last-in-execution is a product of an intermediate first intent, then the overall first intent cannot be so defined as the last in execution. In other words, a final execution is either in conformity with (A) the object of final end, which then makes that very object of final end that which refers back to the overall first intention; or (B) the final execution is an end in itself, and therefore the final execution properly refers back as the overall first intention.

What the Supralapsarians have traditionally and consistently done is assert that the last in execution is the end in itself, which is (B) above. This makes the final execution refer back to the overall first intention and not an intermediate first intent. But is this true?

I am now going to cut and paste a logical argument that demonstrates how the Surpalapsarian model is in error. Again, my apologies for the length.


The Mind Experiment: A companion for a son

• Bob creates two ‘smart’ androids that are similar to him in many ways.
  • These smart androids can sense, act, be in control, and make decisions based on acquired data. In other words, the smart androids are capable of learning from past experiences to apply them to current situations.
• Bob constantly provides energy to his creations
  • These androids that Bob has created cannot sustain their own power for themselves. So not only did Bob create them but Bob must constantly provide energy to uphold them, sustaining them so they can learn and grow.
• Bob plans certain interactions between both androids and between himself and the androids. This is done to build their database with experiential data
  • The smart androids learn from past successes and errors from interactions with Bob. These past experiences of the androids between themselves and with Bob help them become what Bob intends them to be.
• Bob makes small adjustments to the android after every experience.
  • After every experience that Bob has with the androids, Bob makes small adjustments to the androids. These adjustments combined with the experiences, progresses the androids, little by little, toward the completion that Bob intends for the android.
• Both androids become defective.
• Bob decides to repair one android, the other he decides to leave as defective.
  • Bob thinks that there are good experiences that can be had between the fixed android and the defective android that will progress the chosen fixed android toward Bob’s intended end.
• Bob continues providing experiences between androids and between himself and the androids.
• Bob makes the final adjustment to the chosen one, transforming it to a sentient android, the other he scraps.
• What was Bob’s first intention?

Now, if one follows the template of logic used for the traditional Supralapsarian model. Then one would conclude that Bob’s first intention was for the android, for the last in execution is making one android to be sentient and the other android to be scrap. It focuses on the ‘final adjustment’.

Supralapsarianism suggests: Bob’s first intention is to choose one android to be sentient and choose the other android to be scrap.

Based on the Supralapsarian dictum, Bob created for the android. But as we reveal the true purpose of Bob’s creation. We find that the Supralapsarian template falls into error when applying it to our thought experiment.

Bob’s Actual First Intent:

1. Bob thinks his son needs a companion
2. Bob decides to show his love by creating for his son.
   1. Bob decides his creation is to find its ultimate end in companionship with his son.
   2. Someone his son can love and love him back.

If in fact, Bob’s first intent was to create for his son, so as to have a companion for his son. Then it follows that Bob created for his son, not for the android as the supralapsarian model of ‘last in execution is first in intention’ dictates. The intent to create an android was for his son; the planned experiences, for his son; the energy provided, the time, for his son; the decision to keep one defective android so that the other could learn, for his son. This was the true purpose, that is the first intent, because the object of final end was ‘his son’, and therefore the true object of final intended end.

Peace to you brother

Click to expand...

No ... What I mean is the old Sunday School joke ... "Whatever question they ask, the answer is always 'Jesus'."

The FIRST THOUGHT in God's mind was "How do WE glorify Jesus?"

Is Jesus glorified by creating man and allowing them to sin? [Infra]
Is Jesus glorified by saving you and me out of an ocean of damned? [Supra]

Once the PLAN for how to glorify Jesus is set, the secondary details on reaching that goal can be resolved.

KenH said:

Yes, I am a supralapsarian

Click to expand...

Ok, good.

So let's focus on the first intent of the Supralapsarian model. By claiming first intent, one is saying this IS the purpose of creation.

Supralapsarian model says...
#1 God first decrees to predestine the elect to eternal life, and to predestine the reprobate to damnation.

So the Supralapsarian model is claiming that creation is for (1) predestining the elect, and (2) predestining the reprobate. That is God's purpose for creating, according to the Supralapsaian model. But I don't see any scripture that supports this view. What I see is that scripture explicitly says that creation is "for Him" (Col 1:16, Heb 2:10). That God has made "all for Himself" (Pro 16:4). Therefore, the first intent of creation, logically, is not for the elect or the reprobate. It is "for Him" (Col 1:16).

The second error of placing election and reprobation first, imo, is that the Supralapsarian model creates divine dissonance in ones theology by asserting that God decided to reprobate certain individuals before considering sin, guilt or justice. Now, some claim 'God's good pleasure'. A concept in which I agree, in general. However, where I don't agree is that one cannot just go around claiming 'God's good pleasure' to support one's theology. That divine good pleasure is always consistent with all the eternal characteristics of God. In other words, if we know God is just and merciful...then a good theology will not contradict either characteristic. And to me, the Supralapsarian model violates this theological template of 'thou shall not create divine dissonance in one's theology'...else you be wrong biblically.

By asserting that God considers those to be reprobated before any sin and justice seems a clear logical and biblical error. The Infralapsarian model, more popular with Calvinists, being a model that avoids these logical errors. Although, logically the Infralapsarian model would not lead to such things as eternal justification, etc.


keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure

Paleouss said:

Ok, good.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Paleouss, but I am not interested in debating the technicalities of supralapsarianism. I am simply a supralapsarian because I believe that God ordained, from eternity, everything that will take place; not a single atom moves except as God has ordained it.

atpollard said:

No ... What I mean is the old Sunday School joke ... "Whatever question they ask, the answer is always 'Jesus'."

Click to expand...

Ok. My bad

atpollard said:

Is Jesus glorified by creating man and allowing them to sin? [Infra]
Is Jesus glorified by saving some out of an ocean of damned? [Supra]

Click to expand...

I actually think this is a misrepresentation of the Supra model, logically. The "Is Jesus glorified" is a presupposition that is not included in the logic of the model for the Surpa. In other words, the Supra logically starts with the conclusion of that which is last in execution is first in intention. It was not formulated by any logic of "is Jesus glorified". That analysis of "is Jesus glorified by" is an observation of what the Supra is trying to say. So the very genesis of the Supra first intent (decree) is generated by nothing other than the phrase "last in execution is first in intention", logically.

If one were to start the order of decrees as I suggest in my other post, that is, that the Son of God is the first intent and final intended end of creation. Then one never concludes, logically, that the elect are for whom this world was created. One doesn't conclude that the decree of election or reprobation comes before the fall.

But in my estimation, God's sovereignty is upheld in the Infra as well. So what is the Supra upholding that the Infra is not? To me, it's upholding what the first intent of creation was and who it is for...the elect. But this world isn't about the elect, its about the Son of God (Col 1:16).

peace to you brother

KenH said:

Sorry, Paleouss, but I am not interested in debating the technicalities of supralapsarianism.

Click to expand...

Not a problem Ken. Thank you for your time and your pleasant approach.

KenH said:

I am simply a supralapsarian because I believe that God ordained, from eternity, everything that will take place; not a single atom moves except as God has ordained it.

Click to expand...

I also agree that God's sovereignty reigns. What I see you expressing in the quote above is expressed by the Infralapsarian Calvinist as well. They just don't hold to Surpalapsarianism.

Peace and love to you brother.

Paleouss said:

What I see you expressing in the quote above is expressed by the Infralapsarian Calvinist as well.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, infralapsarians do not believe in double predestination; they believe that God chose His elect but simply passed by the rest.

As I understand it, supralapsarians believe that God actively chose both His elect and those who are reprobated; which is my view.

Paleouss said:

I actually think this is a misrepresentation of the Supra model, logically. The "Is Jesus glorified" is a presupposition that is not included in the logic of the model for the Surpa. In other words, the Supra logically starts with the conclusion of that which is last in execution is first in intention. It was not formulated by any logic of "is Jesus glorified". That analysis of "is Jesus glorified by" is an observation of what the Supra is trying to say. So the very genesis of the Supra first intent (decree) is generated by nothing other than the phrase "last in execution is first in intention", logically.

Click to expand...

Perhaps true of "the Supra", but as Ligonier pointed out, not true of the theology of "Christological Supralapsarianism".

"the Puritan Thomas Goodwin, who held to what has been called Christological Supralapsarianism. The end [desired reason for] of all God’s decrees [including the fall, lapsarianism] is the union of the elect with Christ."

Thus the first thought, purpose, decision, point of logic, is what will bring the greatest glory to CHRIST? Everything else flows from that (including the fall) and our specific redemption is what brings Christ glory ... the fall is just needed to allow Christ to display HIS REDEMPTION. So the correct LOGICAL ORDER is:

1. Bring Christ Glory. [Christological Supralapsarianism]
2. Christ redeeming us and being united with us brings Christ glory (goal #1). [Traditional Supralapsarianism]
3. Creating man and allowing man the freedom to fall enables Christ to display his glory through #2. [Traditional Infralapsarianism]

atpollard said:

Perhaps true of "the Supra", but as Ligonier pointed out, not true of the theology of "Christological Supralapsarianism".

"the Puritan Thomas Goodwin, who held to what has been called Christological Supralapsarianism. The end [desired reason for] of all God’s decrees [including the fall, lapsarianism] is the union of the elect with Christ."

Thus the first thought, purpose, decision, point of logic, is what will bring the greatest glory to CHRIST? Everything else flows from that (including the fall) and our specific redemption is what brings Christ glory ... the fall is just needed to allow Christ to display HIS REDEMPTION. So the correct LOGICAL ORDER is:

1. Bring Christ Glory. [Christological Supralapsarianism]
2. Christ redeeming us and being united with us brings Christ glory (goal #1). [Traditional Supralapsarianism]
3. Creating man and allowing man the freedom to fall enables Christ to display his glory through #2. [Traditional Infralapsarianism]

Click to expand...

Sorry, I’m not following….in simple terms then, what are you suggesting?