• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dabney's Objections To The Supralapsarian

Dave...

Active Member
Objections To The Supralapsarian.

But we object more particularly to the Supralapsarian scheme.

(a) That it is erroneous in representing God as having before His mind, as the objects of predestination, men conceived in posse only; and in making creation a means of their salvation or damnation. Whereas, an object must be conceived as existing, in order to have its destiny given to it. And creation can with no propriety be called a means for effectuating a decree of predestination as to creatures. It is rather a prerequisite of such decree.

(b.) It contradicts Scripture, which teaches us that God chose His elect "out of the world," John 15:19, and out of the "same lump" with the vessels of dishonor (Rom. 9:21). They were then regarded as being, along with the non–elect, in the common state of sin and misery.

(c.) Our election is in Christ our Redeemer (Eph. 1:4; 3:11), which clearly shows that we are conceived as being fallen, and in need of a Redeemer, in this act. And, moreover, our election is an election to the exercise of saving graces to be wrought in us by Christ (1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Thess. 2:13). (d.) Election is declared to be an act of mercy (Rom. 9:15 16, 11:5, 6), and preterition is an act of justice (Rom. 9:22). Now as mercy and goodness imply an apprehension of guilt and misery in their object, so justice implies ill-desert. This shows that man is predestined as fallen; and is not permitted to fall because predestined. I will conclude this part, by repeating the language of Turrettin, Loc. 4, Qu. 18, 5.

1. "By this hypothesis, the first act of God’s will towards some of His creatures is conceived to be an act of hatred, in so far as He willed to demonstrate His righteousness in their damnation, and indeed before they were considered as in sin, and consequently before they were deserving of hatred; nay, while they were conceived as still innocent, and so rather the objects of love. This does not seem compatible with God’s ineffable goodness.

2. "It is likewise harsh that, according to this scheme, God is supposed to have imparted to them far the greatest effects of love, out of a principle of hatred, in that He determines to create them in a state of integrity to this end, that He may illustrate His righteousness in their damnation. This seems to express Him neither as supremely good nor as supremely wise and just.

3. "It is erroneously supposed that God exercised an act of mercy and justice towards His creatures in His foreordination of their salvation and destruction, in that they are conceived as neither wretched, nor even existing as yet. But since those virtues (mercy and justice) are relative, they pre-suppose their object, do not make it.

4. "It is also asserted without warrant, that creation and the fall are means of election and reprobation, since they are antecedent to them: else sin would be on account of damnation, whereas damnation is on account of sin; and God would be said to have created men that He might destroy them."

I had a link but it doesn't work anymore. I had to cut and paste this from an old post from an old friend. I wish I still had access to Dabney's works online because he also objected to the infralapsarian view. He went into a lot of related stuff. He basically concluded that these are questions that we should not ask. I really liked Dabney's thinking here. He puts Scripture first. And he also said...

"The distinction is, like that of the Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian, an attempted over–refinement, which should never have been made, which explained nothing, and whose corollaries increased the difficulties of the subject."--Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology, Index Created by Christian Classics Foundation., electronic ed. based on the Banner of Truth 1985 ed. (Simpsonville SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1996), 424.

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, I think what Dabney was saying, in layman's terms, was that the Supra - Infra debate (to put it bluntly), is a case of theologians liking the smell of their own gas.

What say you.
 

Paleouss

Active Member
Site Supporter
What say you.
Dave, greetings to you brother.

I have asserted on this forum before that I believe that the Supralapsarian position is mistaken and therefore false. Beza originally used the Greek dictum, “that which is first in intention is last in execution...that which is last in execution is first in intention” and applied it to the scriptures to come up with God's first intent (called Supralapsarian).

I have attempted to show before how this application of the the Greek dictum can be wrong, logically. Additionally, that the Bible gives us the exact first intention of God for creation (and its not the elect). I think that first intention of God is this (according to the Bible)...
First Intent: 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; thereby being the purpose of creation’s beginning and end, all for God the Son.
I can give the verses for this if you desire.
If I'm reading between the lines correctly, I think what Dabney was saying, in layman's terms, was that the Supra - Infra debate (to put it bluntly), is a case of theologians liking the smell of their own gas.
I disagree here. Beza and his followers started something that needed addressed through Scripture and biblical reasoning. Those that opposed the Supralapsarian model only presented how Beza was wrong. At least in my estimation. It was something that needed addressing and confronting, thus the debate began.


Keep seeking God's wisdom as hidden treasure.
 

Dave...

Active Member
Dave, greetings to you brother.

I have asserted on this forum before that I believe that the Supralapsarian position is mistaken and therefore false. Beza originally used the Greek dictum, “that which is first in intention is last in execution...that which is last in execution is first in intention” and applied it to the scriptures to come up with God's first intent (called Supralapsarian).

I have attempted to show before how this application of the the Greek dictum can be wrong, logically. Additionally, that the Bible gives us the exact first intention of God for creation (and its not the elect). I think that first intention of God is this (according to the Bible)...

I can give the verses for this if you desire.

I disagree here. Beza and his followers started something that needed addressed through Scripture and biblical reasoning. Those that opposed the Supralapsarian model only presented how Beza was wrong. At least in my estimation. It was something that needed addressing and confronting, thus the debate began.


Keep seeking God's wisdom as hidden treasure.
Hey Paleouss

Logically, I keep it simple. God is not bound by time, so there is no thinking process. The logical process is not in the thinking, but in the overall plan. What is available to us is simply how it is laid out in Scripture and played out in time. Beyond that it would only be guess work. I think that Dabney kept it within those boundaries nicely and allowed for some questions to go unanswered, as we will never understand these things completely, as Job found out in chapter 38. :)

Dave
 

Paleouss

Active Member
Site Supporter
Logically, I keep it simple. God is not bound by time, so there is no thinking process.
Greetings again Dave. Peace and hope to you and yours.

Regarding your above quote... I have found that this is a common modern day approach to the debate of Supralapsarianism verses Infralapsarianism. Not only by those that appose Supralapsiariansim but by those that advocate Supralapsarianism. The result ends up being that the Supoalapsarian avoided debate regarding the origins and foundation of logic of their own position.

The misunderstanding of many in both modern day parties is that the foundation of Supralapsarianism does not assert that God was bound by time nor does it assert that God had a thought process of one after another. So the modern counter by both parties to avoid the debate by saying God is not bound by time, fails. It fails as being a proper avoidance of defending the Supralapsarian position AND it fails for those apposing it as a proper attack.

The Supralapsarian position by Beza basically says that even though God is not bound by time and all His decrees were made at the exact moment in time...those decrees do have a logical order. Then...enter the Greek dictum “that which is first in intention is last in execution...that which is last in execution is first in intention”. This Greek dictum was used before Beza by Aquinas and Aristotle before him. It was a position in search of verses, imo, after that.

So in short, if one is to simply say in the face of the Supralapsarian, God is not bound by time. This person misunderstands the debate and fails to show that Supralapsariansim is false. All that has been done, imo, is avoid the debate that needs to be done.
The logical process is not in the thinking, but in the overall plan.
Again, the debate isn't about God "thinking". It's about logic and what the scripture tells us.
What is available to us is simply how it is laid out in Scripture and played out in time. Beyond that it would only be guess work.
I'm not sure how this counters the Supralapsarian position. Don't they show us how the Scripture has laid it out? How time has played it out?

We are instructed through scripture that by God the Son “all things were created” (Col1:16, Heb 1:2) in both “heaven and earth” (Col1:16), for it is God the Son our Lord “through whom are all things”(1Cor 8:6) “and without [whom] was not anything made that was made.” (John 1:3, Heb 1:2). Not only were all things made through God the Son but 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.”

Now what I just wrote is biblical. It, imo, is the explicit statement within scripture that informs us of God's first intention of creation. That first intention and final intended end is God the Son (Col 1:16, Rom 11:36, Heb 2:10). So scripture seems to tell us what God's first intent was and what His final intended end was, and its not what the Supra's claim it to be.

Supralapsarianism tells us that the first intent of of God to create was for the elect...
"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."
Cooper, Berry “Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism” Ligonier Ministries 2024 [ligonier.org]

Peace to you brother
 
Top