Reymond's Order of the Decrees

[Pergamum]

I am infralapsarian. I think conformity with Dort demands it.

But a friend recently showed me Robert Reymond's ordering of the decrees. Can you help me critique it?

I am automatically suspicious of it because, if it is so good, why wasn't it really represented by anyone in the past (i.e. my default is to be suspicious of novel reworkings of theology).

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2010/10/05/the-order-of-decrees-which-came-first/

Reymond’s modified position seems to attempt to get the best of both the Supra- and infralapsarian views, in that it places things in reverse chronological order, while also considering the men who are elected as sinners. My understanding is that Dr. White favors this approach, though I do not claim to speak for him on this subject. I would encourage people to follow the example of the Westminster assembly and not make the order of decrees itself a point over which to divide fellowship or exclude ministers. While only one logical order of decrees can be true, we should be careful in what amount of knowledge of the truth we demand from our fellow Christians regarding things that are less explicitly and clearly stated in Scripture.

 

[Peairtach]

"While only one logical order of the decrees can be true"

This is not a subject I've ever wrapped my head round, but Dabney would disagree with the above. In his "Systematic Theology" he says it is not a question that can be asked because of the omniscience of God. "God's decree has no succession; and to Him no successive order of parts; because it is a contemporaneous unit, comprehended together, by one infinite, intuition."

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

 

[TheOldCourse]

"While only one logical order of the decrees can be true"

This is not a subject I've ever wrapped my head round, but Dabney would disagree with the above. In his "Systematic Theology" he says it is not a question that can be asked because of the omniscience of God. "God's decree has no succession; and to Him no successive order of parts; because it is a contemporaneous unit, comprehended together, by one infinite, intuition."

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

While he says that, he also then spends a great deal of time debunking particularly the supra position on Scriptural and logical grounds. He then admits the infra position to be more scriptural and honoring to God and then defends it against some of the supra objections. His always seemed a bit of a "have your cake and eat it too" position. I suppose it's not all that different from Twisse who (though a supra) called the distinction "merely a point of logic" and of little churchly relevence and then proceeded to argue extensively about it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Along with Reymond, I understand the refinements posited by Clark and Hoeksema for the supra position to be:

1. positively elect some, positively reprobate others to make known God's mercy to the elect
2. decree to save the elect and redeem through Christ's redemptive act
3. decree that man should fall
4. decree to create

So we have here, stating Reymond's views, God is represented as discriminating among men viewed as sinners and not among men viewed simply as men. Reymond goes on to state that that which is last in design is first in accomplishment, and that which is first in design is last in accomplishment. Yet then I think Reymond goes too far when he then obliquely argues that the infra position assumes God is decreeing to create the world with no purpose or decreeing to create for some purpose unrelated to his one final purpose (p.494). On the contrary, both positions view the ultimate end of God is to manifest his own glory.

Reymond presupposes that God’s perfectly rational mind would proceed with the end in mind in retrograde movement as Berkhof describes. Reymond then assumes that in order for God to manifest his mercy, he must first decide to positively elect and reprobate. This is not rational to me, despite the tortuous examples Reymond uses about a person buying a car, etc. He ignores the fact in his example that the car must first objectively exist in God's mind, just as a fallen mass of humanity must potentially exist, which said fallen lump would so exist once God so decrees to create and ordain to fall. So Reymond, et al, have tried to create a nuanced view of the classical supra position in hopes of overcoming the objection infralapsarians raise. The argument, while clever, seems to me not persuasive logically or biblically.

 

[Pergamum]

The Canons of Dort supports the Infra view. Why? Any links to the thoughts of those who were at Dort (that are not in Dutch)?

 

[MW]

Much confusion enters into this discussion because of a lack of attention to specific terms. To say that a person is elected to "salvation" is to consider the man is "fallen" and in need of "salvation." Supralapsarians agree with infralapsarians in teaching that election to "salvation" is of "fallen" men. Dort does not give a systematic view of election, but is entirely taken up with the doctrines being controverted by the Remonstrants. It only speaks to the doctrine of "salvation," on which both supralapsarians and infralapsarians are agreed. It is therefore incorrect to say that Dort supports the infralapsarian view as distinguished from the supralapsarian view. Its omission of the supralapsarian distinctive might give some advantage to the infralapsarian view, but it cannot be said to support something it does not address.