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/
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.