ABSTRACT
This chapter assesses the success of Jonathan Edwards' asymmetrical argument for the predestinarian decrees. It suggests that the force of Edwards' argument, seen in the wider context of his theological determinism, would have been more consistent, and, perhaps, more coherent, if he had opted for a purely supralapsarian position on the divine decrees. There has been some debate about whether Edwards endorsed a supra-, or infralapsarian position with respect to the doctrine of predestination. The doctrine of the divine decrees can often appear to be more than a little arcane to contemporary students of theology. The logical structure of the traditional supralapsarian view of the divine decrees proceeds on the basis of the maxim, 'what is first in design is last in accomplishment'. The decree to glorify divine holiness is ultimate in so far as it involves the end, of displaying a central divine attribute: holiness.
