Logical order of God's decrees: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:40, 14 April 2024

Revision as of 09:36, 1 July 2024

Line 47:

The difficulty in ascertaining an historical supralapsarian position is that while many supralapsarians may have held similar positions with regard to the ordering of the decree, the actual object and subject of predestination may differ among many. The example of [[William Twisse]] may be interesting to many given some of his emphases, which may not be as unique to him historically.

ConcerningRegarding his doctrine of salvation, Twisse was explicitly and staunchly supralapsarian. However, italthough ishis difficultviews are hard to fit his views into athe receivedstandard definition of supralapsarianism. He heldadhered to the classic supralapsarianismsupralapsarian dictum: "Quod primum est in intentione, ultimum est in executione...quod ultimum est in executione, primum est in intentione" (that which is first in intention is last in execution...that which is last in execution is first in intention) and stressedemphasized these repeatedly in his writings.

Most supralapsarians would have held to the general claim that the result or final intention of the divine decree is the manifestation of God's glory particularly through the application of divine mercy upon some and divine justice upon others. God's mercy is shown to some in both the forgiveness of those guilty of imputed and actual sin and the bestowal of eternal life. On the other hand, God's justice is shown in the permitting of those who are guilty of imputed and actual sin to continue on their chosen path and the bestowal of divine judgment for their unrepentant disobedience. As the manifestation of glory through mercy and justice is the final intention, given the dictum, it is the last set of elements to come to pass within history, or last in execution. What is not clear is how supralapsarians saw the means playing out to this final end.