THE ORDER OF DECREES
Within Theology is not only the question of God’s decrees, but also the question of the order of the decrees. That is, the inquiry does not relate just to what God decreed, but also to the sequence in which God decreed what He decreed. Merely the statement of the issue causes the issue to sound suspicious.
Is this a legitimate concern? Does it even merit discussion? Does such consideration pursue what cannot be found and, therefore, should not even be pursued? Is it an attempt to make plain the incomprehensible? Is the effort indeed a veiled attempt to humanize God by those who independently of such an endeavor would think such a humanization to be the utmost evil? Is there an unconscious projecting upon God the ways of man? Is there an unspoken assumption that God’s thoughts are of a logical order, similar to man’s thoughts? And is this a valid assumption? Is the entire enterprise an attempt to expose the hiddenness of God, something that should not be done?
While recognizing and confessing uncertainty about even reflecting on such a matter, the issue will be set forth. The question relates to the logical order of the decrees in relationship to the decree to permit the Fall. Was the decree to election before or after the decree regarding the Fall? Prominent positions are: Supralapsarianism (meaning, “before the Fall”); Infralapsarianism and Sublapsarianism (meaning, “after the Fall”). Both words are related to the Latin, lapsus, fall.
For Supralapsarianism the order is:
the decree to save and to reprobate; Election and
Reprobation
the decree to create both elect and non-elect; Creation
the decree to permit the Fall; Fall
the decree to provide salvation for the elect; Salvation for the Elect
the decree to create both elect and non-elect; Creation
the decree to permit the Fall; Fall
the decree to provide salvation for the elect; Salvation for the Elect
For Infralapsarianism the order is:
the decree to create man; Creation
the decree to permit the Fall; Fall
the decree to save and to reprobate; Election and Reprobation
the decree to provide salvation for the elect; Salvation for the Elect
the decree to permit the Fall; Fall
the decree to save and to reprobate; Election and Reprobation
the decree to provide salvation for the elect; Salvation for the Elect
For Sublapsarianism (a variation of Infralapsarianism) the order is:
the decree to create man; Creation
the decree to permit the Fall; Fall
the decree to provide salvation sufficient for all; Salvation for All
the decree to apply salvation to the elect; Salvation for the Elect
the decree to permit the Fall; Fall
the decree to provide salvation sufficient for all; Salvation for All
the decree to apply salvation to the elect; Salvation for the Elect
It does not seems proper to think that one decree of God conditions another decree of God, but rather that all decrees are so integrated and dependent that they cannot be neatly separated; it may indeed be the case that the idea of decrees, at least in the human understanding, is completely improper; there are no decrees, just the decree of God which is comprehensive, meaning that within God’s unitary decree resides all of God’s determination.
Additionally, a logical order should not, or perhaps cannot, be attributed to the working of God’s thought processes. God is not like man—God is God. His thoughts are neither sequential nor developing. He eternally knows. And it is impossible for man to contemplate the mind of God or fathom His inner workings (see: God is Omniscient).
All reflections on
lapsarian views and the various interpretations that arise from such
reasoning are unnecessary in the least and perhaps arrogant presumption at
the most. Man must understand and accept his limitations. But in the last
analysis it seems wiser to say that Scripture does not give us enough data
to probe into this mystery, and, moreover, it does not seem very edifying to
do so (Grudem, ST, 679).
Return to: Sovereignty in Salvation; Next Article: Because of Grace
For overview of THEOLOGY, see: Site Map - Theology