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.
