Loraine Boettner against Supralapsarianism

"It is not in harmony with the Scripture ideas of God that innocent men, men who are not contemplated as sinners, should be foreordained to eternal misery and death. The decrees concerning the saved ‘and the lost should not be looked upon as based merely on abstract sovereignty. God is truly sovereign, but this sovereignty is not exercised in an arbitrary way. Rather it is a sovereignty exercised in harmony with His other attributes, especially His justice, holiness, and wisdom. God cannot commit sin; and in that respect He is limited, although it would be more accurate to speak of His inability to commit sin as a perfection. There is, of course, mystery in connection with either system; but the supralapsarian system seems to pass beyond mystery and into contradiction.‘" - Loraine Boettner


Now a couple of weeks ago I posted a link of what appeared to be from Loraine Boettner's work. His conclusion is that the Supralapsarian system seems to pass beyond mystery and into contradiction. My question is how? From what he just wrote it is really difficult to see where the Supralapsarian leads to such things. The Supralapsarian need I say it more than once says that God choice was apart from any foreseen works whether those works were good or bad. That God is not at liberty to dispense His grace as He pleased is quite the contrary of what the Bible says. God at some point in time decided to create. I find it interesting that he speaks against Abstract sovereignty - I also wonder what he means by such things, especially when he proclaims that this is mystery. By Abstract sovereignty he does not define but merely speaks of it. Saying that God is Simple is also abstract does it make it meaningless or mysterious? Of course not. Some theologians do not believe in such qualifying rules.

Loraine Boettner on Supralapsarianism

I read something about Supralapsarianism from Loraine Boettner. He says, "One of the leading motives in the supralapsarian scheme is to emphasize the idea of discrimination and to push this idea into the whole of God’s dealings with men. We believe, however, that supralapsarianism over-emphasizes this idea. In the very nature of the case this idea cannot be consistently carried out, e.g., in creation, and especially in the fall. It was not merely some of the members of the human race who were objects of the decree to create, but all mankind, and that with the same nature. And it was not merely some men, but the entire race, which was permitted to fall. Supralapsarianism goes to as great an extreme on the one side as does universalism on the other. Only the infralapsarian scheme is self-consistent or consistent with other facts."
Found Here: http://www.the-highway.com/election4_Boettner.html

He calls discrimination one of the leading motives in Supralapsarianism. I am not sure exactly what he means by this. I would have thought that Infralapsarianism also held to some sort of discrimination. Both do it seems like. However, he says Supralapsarians over-emphasis this idea. My question is how do we overemphasis this idea? He proclaims this idea (of discrimination?) cannot be carried out in creation or the fall... Of course one of the points of Supralapsarian is the fact that God has elected and reprobated apart from man's goodness or badness apart from any works found in the creature. And that then God created both the elect and reprobate together in Adam (the head of the human race) so that by his fall - all in Him fell.

God did not create individual people but rather he created a species of Mankind. The fall of Mankind (In Adam) meant that the whole lump was now deprived.

This statement of Loraine Boettner makes no sense. Hopefully, he will say some sort of substance later in this Article.