The Order of God's Decrees

THE ORDER OF GOD’S DECREES

When considering the essentials of “The Faith Once Delivered to the Saints”,

It is be helpful to review some key concepts that heavily inform ones view of Salvation.

Although there is general agreement as to the origin of salvation among professing Christians (Salvation is from God and God alone), there is however great debate and disagreement concerning the Order of God’s Salvific Decrees. 

Before we can consider any meaningful discussion regarding the sequence of God’s decrees, it is necessary to clarify and remember that whenever we speak in terms of God’s attributes we are doing so for the sake of our human understanding. We must resort to language devices. Here we are using what theologians refer to as anthropomorphism (speaking in human terms by way of analogy).

 There is no Chronological order in God’s decrees. God is eternal. He does not think or decide in a time related sequence like we do. He is Nontemporal, not subject to the laws of time as relates to His own being. Whatever decisions He has made, thoughts He has thought or decrees He has made, he has done so simultaneously, from all eternity. I find the term Simultaneity helpful to grasp the concept.

There is no Logical order in God’s decrees. While it is true that God is the author of logic.

And in Him there is no contradiction or confusion, even so God is not subject in His own thinking to the sequential laws of logic as we are (as having one thought after another). God knows all things immediately and intuitively in Himself eternally (Omniscience).

There is an Operational order to God’s decrees. God relates to His temporal (time related) creation in the sequential order of the execution of His decrees. God eternally willed and decreed all things to happen in a certain pre-ordained temporal sequence (one after the other). It makes no sense to speak of God having a chronological or logical order in His mind as though one thought must follow another except as it relates to His creation in time and space. Whatever God is He is eternally without change and whatever God knows He knows all at once from eternity without change. Which is why the Bible speaks of election as being in Accordance with God’s Will; Eph.1:5; 1Pet.1:2 not based upon or independent of any other of His attributes, such as solely upon His Sovereignty (which is the error of extreme and strong Calvinism) or upon His Foreknowledge (which is the error of extreme Arminianism)  for example.

Supralapsarianism is a Latin term (as are all the categories we will consider in this study); it comes from supra – above and lapsus – fall. The idea being that God decreed the eternal destination of all people before He decreed the fall. Indeed He predestined both the saved and the eternally damned before He even decreed to create the universe. This concept is seen by its adherents to give the most glory to God by removing any possibility for any other consideration than God’s sovereign will to be involved in election. The theological term for this point of view is Theologism; simply stated “that which seems to give the most glory to God must be true”. However it is not what one thinks seems to give glory to God that is true; it is what really is true, actually, that is true.

Supralapsarianism is also known as Antelapsarianism, Hyper-Calvinism and Double Predestination. According to this view God's predetermination is done independent of His foreknowledge of human free acts (this concept is contrary to God’s Omniscience, Simplicity and Simultaneity and is therefore actually impossible).

Consequently, 1) the actuality of human free will must be denied (theistic determinism is affirmed along with a denial of the power to choose the contrary).

2) The necessity of the imposition of irresistible force by God upon the unwilling must be embraced (so called Irresistible Grace which in point of fact is akin to rape which is anything but gracious).

3) God’s Omnibenevolence (all-lovingness) must be denied.

 In order to explain away the obvious inconsistencies between this dogma and the revealed word of God, it was necessary to create and delineate a new Systematic Theology including the redefinition of critical terms. For example; know now means love, love means choose, choose means what God has predetermined, free means in bondage, death means spiritual separation from God and so on. These terms and concepts are contained in the so called TULIP principles of Calvinism, euphemistically labeled “the doctrines of grace” and are held by both hyper-Calvinists and strong-Calvinists.

Infralapsarianism is the belief that God decreed His election (infra – beneath) after He decreed creation and the fall. Unlike Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism does not hold to  the idea of double predestination. The predestination of the elect is maintained but the concept of Reprobation (the predestination of the lost) is denied. God simply passes over the “un-chosen” and thereby allows them to go to hell without interfering or intervening in their destiny. He simply allows justice to take its course, after all He doesn’t owe anybody anything and He can do as he wishes with what He makes (Theologism). The “L” principle of the TULIP is embraced (indeed all 5 are embraced), that being Limited Atonement the idea being that Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world (contrary to a plain reading of numerous scripture texts such as Jn.3:16; 1Jn.2:2, Heb.2:9 etc.), but He died only for the sins of the elect. The argument being that if Christ’s death was sufficient for all men then all men would necessarily have to be saved (universalism). The dogma of Particularism is stipulated as it is with Supralapsarianism.  However, the Bible does declare that Christ’s death is in fact Sufficient to save all mankind as previously demonstrated, but it is Efficient for the salvation of only those who believe, i.e. the elect according to the foreknowledge of God.

Sublapsarianism (below the fall) is the understanding that, the order of God’s decrees are consistent with all of God’s attributes (Divine Essentialism) simultaneously (In Accordance With, never inconsistent with or independent of any one attribute over the other) and that God has ordained that each person is personally responsible and capable in the moral sense to freely believe and accept, or freely reject His offer of salvation.

Sublapsarianism is similar to Infralapsarianism except that the order of God’s providing salvation precedes His order of election. This is a critical difference. It is a strong denial of the whole concept of Limited Atonement. God’s Omnibenevolence is acknowledged and embraced. Man’s free will is understood in the unambiguous and normal meaning of terms to affirm his ability to respond to God’s call either positively or negatively.  The critical difference between Supralapsarianism and Sublapsarianism is in how they view the sufficiency of the atonement.

 Supralapsarianism holds to limited atonement while Sublapsarianism holds to unlimited atonement. Sublapsarianism is also known as Moderate Calvinism and sometimes as Compatibilism or Soft Determinism.

Arminianism is the final position we will look at for now. In fact, we will concentrate on a particular form of Arminianism, that of Wesleyan Arminianism, which is prevalent in many churches today. Wesleyans insist that election is Conditional. It is based upon God’s foreknowledge concerning the behavior of an individual. Election is not just in accordance with God’s foreknowledge, it is dependent upon it. This is a critical error and the distinction is easily overlooked. Again, it must be emphasized that God’s choice in election is not dependent upon His foreknowledge of human choice. God’s fore choosing and His foreknowing are not sequential, they are simultaneous and coordinate.         

Furthermore Wesleyanism denies the doctrine of Eternal Security. All three of the previous positions maintain the belief in eternal security. In this regard Wesleyanism is distinct from all forms of Calvinism. And so, there are several considerable problems with Arminian doctrine.

1) It is in direct conflict with the biblical definition of Grace. Consider Eph.2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7; and Rom.11:6 for example.

2) It diminishes the efficacy of the atonement of Christ and it denies the sufficiency of His ability to completely save lost sinners. See Rom.8:1-2, 31-39; and 1Pet.1:3-5.

3) It runs contrary to the doctrine of God’s Simplicity, which doctrine we outlined before concerning the concept of simultaneity in God. God’s thoughts and His knowledge are not sequential but are simultaneous, unchanging and eternal. A distinction must be maintained between the objects of God’s knowledge (which exist in a time space continuum of chronology and sequence) which are not part of His nature or essence, and God’s knowledge itself, which is inherent in His unchanging eternal essence.

One aspect of Arminianism that is helpful is the concept of so called “Libertarian Freedom.” This concept defines man’s free will as being “the ability to choose the contrary”, which idea is Biblical and can be seen in many verses of scripture such as Zech.1:2-4; 7:8-13; Jn.5:40; Lk.13:34 etc. However caution must be maintained to not overstate the case for freedom. Man’s freedom is limited by the parameters that God has set for it. It is not autonomous freedom to do anything. It is the freedom to make self determined moral choices. This is the basis for human responsibility and accountability before God. And this is a very important component to preserve in ones theology.