#8 Disorder of the Decrees

Christ, by God's plan, is the sure foundation of salvation.

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (1 Peter 1:20)

When talking about God's plan, theologians talk about the order of the decrees. This is a logical, not a temporal order. Because this plan was from the foundation of the world, the issue is logically what is based on what, not temporally, which came first. On this issue Calvinists come in 3 flavors: supralapsarian, sublapsarian/infralapsarian and Amyraldian. Amyraldian's teach that Christ died for everyone. Sublapsarian/infralapsarians say God first decreed the fall, then elected some for salvation. Supralapsarians say God first elected some for glory other for destruction, then He decreed the fall.

The question at hand is relationship between the decree that Christ the foundation of salvation and the decree of salvation. What is the relationship between Christ's death and predestination?

Arminains and Amyraldians teach that God first choose Christ to be the foundation of salvation, then choose to save us. Supra and sub lapsarians teach God first choose us, then Christ.

This site has a nice table listing out the various views and orders of the decrees:

http://www.theopedia.com/Order_of_God

The implications on the extent of Christ's death is vast. How could Christ die only for the elect, if God had not yet decreed election? If the election of Christ comes first, Christ died for all. If God first elected, Christ could have died just for the elect.

In Ephesians 1 Paul says:

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to
the good pleasure of his will,

We are chosen in Him, meaning Christ. Christ is the basis of our election and the foundation of our salvation. It doesn't make sense for God to choose us for salvation if He hasn't already chosen Christ as the Savior. Worse, it dishonors Christ if the Father has without Christ already made our salvation certain. Christ becomes the means the Father uses to save. The Father's decree, not Christ becomes the foundation of salvation.

So it makes sense that Christ was chosen before us. But if there were no elect (only sinners) when Christ's mission was decreed, how then could He be sent for the elect alone?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more