Is this statement uniquely supralapsarian?

[au5t1n]

"God decreed the Fall in order to glorify Christ by sending him to save his people from its effects."

Is this statement uniquely supralapsarian, or can it fit logically in an infralapsarian understanding of the logical relationship between the decrees?

I ask because I don't know which lapsarian position is correct (if either), but the above statement fits well with my understanding of why God ordained the Fall.

 

[au5t1n]

I probably should have posted this in the evening rather than morning. Now does anyone know whether the above understanding of the purpose of the Fall can be held within an infralapsarian understanding of the relationship between the decrees?

 

[TeachingTulip]

"God decreed the Fall in order to glorify Christ by sending him to save his people from its effects."

Is this statement uniquely supralapsarian, or can it fit logically in an infralapsarian understanding of the logical relationship between the decrees?

I ask because I don't know which lapsarian position is correct (if either), but the above statement fits well with my understanding of why God ordained the Fall.

Your question is hard to answer because the statement appears open-ended, plus ALL the decrees of God were purposed to glorify Christ.

So I believe an Infra could easily make this claim; as well as a Supra.

Adherence to either view is rarely considered to amount to being "incorrect."

 

[au5t1n]

Your question is hard to answer because the statement appears open-ended, plus ALL the decrees of God were purposed to glorify Christ.

I think this is because I don't know exactly how to word the idea I'm trying to communicate. I do understand that in either lapsarian view, all decrees are from eternity and are meant to glorify Christ. My question is, if I believe that God decreed the Fall partly as a step towards eventually manifesting the elect sons of God in Christ, is there room for that perspective within infralapsarianism? My inclination is to think that since infralapsarianism requires election to be decreed only considering men as fallen, it would make little sense for the fall to be decreed to manifest an election that depends on the fall. It would be circular, wouldn't it? Again, I'm sorry for explaining poorly. I'm still not certain if my question makes sense in the way I've worded it.

Adherence to either view is rarely considered to amount to being "incorrect."

Well, if they contradict, a minimum of one of them must be incorrect. I understand that this is not considered an issue upon which a lot hangs, and that's fine. I'm just curious.