Talk:Order of God's decrees

From Theopedia

Contents 1 Graphic jpeg for chart 2 Textual note/question 3 Graphic -> HTML table 4 Seventh Scheme 5 New thought 6 Partial table... 6.1 The Order of Decrees 7 Deserts vs Desserts 8 Great article - Thanks!

Graphic jpeg for chart

I have uploaded a jpeg providing a chart in this article. If anyone would like to rework or integrate this chart in "wiki-html form," feel free to do so. I just don't know how. :-) Gomarus 10:56, 31 Oct 2005 (EST)

Textual note/question

Isn't the proper protocol when quoting someone to quote the source, ie book page etc.? At least at the end? JenniferDent 16:14, 3 Nov 2005 (EST)

If you relied heavily on a source, I would reference it at the end, however, include the Publisher and Date if it's a reference. If you drew bits and pieces, even ideas from multiple sources (unless I'm wrong here, and please correct me if I am), you shouldn't have to reference it. If it's a quote, "Author, book/article, page" will do.

Whenever using a direct quote (from a source other then the one referenced at the bottom) the proper procedure if the author has copywrited his/her material (ie has a note in the front with something along the lines of: "No part of this work may be reproduced...") is to immediately before or after state the where and when and what was quoted for example in the article the following quote is used:

As Alexander Hodge has stated, "The question as to the Order of Decrees is not a question as to the order of acts in God decreeing, but it is a question as to the true relation sustained by the several parts of the system which He decrees to one another."

Where/when did he say this? What work is being quoted. The easiest way to alleviate this would be to state it this way:

As Alexander Hodge has stated in [place source here], "The question as to the Order of Decrees is not a question as to the order of acts in God decreeing, but it is a question as to the true relation sustained by the several parts of the system which He decrees to one another."

Make sense? JenniferDent 17:12, 3 Nov 2005 (EST)

Definitely. Gomarus, did you quote this? I don't know where it came from. JordanBarrett 17:26, 3 Nov 2005 (EST)

Nice link to Hodge Gomarus :^) Looks great! JenniferDent 21:10, 3 Nov 2005 (EST)

Graphic -> HTML table

That graphical table should ideally be converted to an HTML table. Good work on the article! -Aaronshaf 10:41, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)

Seventh Scheme

Robert L. Reymond, in his book "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith" speaks of a seventh view of the logical order of the decrees of God. It is slightly different from the traditional supralapsarian scheme. Reymond calls it the "teleological supralapsairan scheme":

1. Election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect)
2. Decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners
3. Decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ
4. Decree that men should fall
5. Decree to create the world and men

I apologize, but I do not know if Reymond actually originated this scheme. Unfortunately I don't have his book at my fingertips.

I'm new to the theopedia. Excuse me, therefore, if this is not the appropriate venue or means to suggest that we include this seventh scheme. - DocTrinsOGrace

Thanks for the input. Additional discussion is welcome. However, I don't find Reymond's distinction particularly helpful. I must not understand his use of the term "teleological" since to me it comes across as a muddled form of Infralapsarianism. If the first in logical/relational order is to "elect from among sinful men" then they must be viewed as both created and fallen, which is simply the infralapsarian view. Gomarus 10:32, 16 December 2005 (EST)

Hi, Gomarus... Pardon me, I hope this comes across properly... I can appreciate that you might not favor Reymond's teleological -- versus the traditional -- supralapsarian scheme. However, it is taught in the academic circles of historical Baptists in which I circulate. That isn't an effort to lend it support, rather, it is an effort to point out that it warrants mention in the Theopedia. At least, it warrants mention if the intent of articles is to provide the full picture on a given topic.

The sense of the word "teleological" in this context is, I believe, to emphasize that the order of God's decrees "began" with His end state "in mind." This is not something alien to our own temporal experience. When we begin the process of design or problem-solving we begin with the end state or objective we intend to accomplish. Decisions/choices in accomplishing that goal always appear as subsequent steps of our design. For example, when we decide that a bridge is needed to cross a river, we set out with that as our objective. All subsequent steps are intended to conclude with the final completion of the bridge we intended to build. Reymond argues that our experience is characteristic of sapient behavior.

(It is interesting if you were to add this seventh scheme to the table to the left of supralapsarian view, a progression is visible in terms of the "placement" of election. Election first appears in the Amyraldian view in decree 4. In the infralapsarian view it appears in decree 3. In the traditional supralapsarian view it appears in decree 2. In the teleological supralapsarian view it has made its way to decree 1.) DocTrinsOGrace

I have Reymond's Systematic Theology, so I'll just have to make some time to read over the section in question to get a better sense of his scheme. Thanks. Gomarus 17:51, 17 December 2005 (EST)

DocTrinsOGrace, I still haven't read over Reymond's discussion yet, but I had a thought in the interim. I have no problem adding another subsection entitled "Reymond's teleological scheme" with attendant description/explanation. This would get the info presented in the article although the graphic would remain unchanged. Gomarus 09:51, 18 December 2005 (EST)

New thought

The Order of Decrees Chart may need a correction in the first decree of Supralapsarianism. The Supralapsarians had "decree to elect some to eternal life..." first. They believed it to be first in order of logic, because they felt it was the foundation. God first decreed what He wanted to accomplish, the He Decreed how He would accomplish it. user:Chiefmusician

I prefer to leave the chart like it is for now. I believe Supralapsarianism is exactly as Warfield had it listed. I'll try and verify when I get a chance. That's not to say there aren't variations. This alternate view is already mentioned in the text description. Gomarus 07:43, 26 January 2006 (EST)

I am new to this site so I hope I am doing this right.

In your chart on Order of Decrees you have Decree to Create Man first in all of the Calvinist and Arminian orders. I really think you have it in the wrong place for Supralapsarian. Could you please explain why you placed it first for Supra. I am currently studying this topic, and am by no means an expert. I am hoping you know something I do not. Scott HillChiefmusician 01:16, 31 January 2006 (EST)

Not being an expert in the area, I couldn't say for sure, but it strikes me as a bit odd to posit that God decided to elect and damn before deciding that he had anyone to elect and damn. Much like (to bring this waaaaay down to a level we can all appreciate) if I decide that I wanted pork chops for dinner, then I have first decided to have dinner, which logically comes first. Wooster (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2006 (EST)

I re-looked at the Table from Warfield's book -- it, in fact, does not list the "decree to create" in any of the columns (Ha!). We could do the same. But here is a quote from Warfield who I took as the authority for this article.

"God from creation itself, it is therefore said, deals with men conceived as divided into two classes, the recipients respectively of his undeserved favor and of his well-merited reprobation. Accordingly, some supralapsarians place the decree of discrimination first in the order of thought, precedent even to the decree of creation. All of them place it in the order of thought precedent to the decree of the fall."

He clearly mentions both varieties of "supra", but the primary issue is where "election" (or predestination to salvation) logically stands with respect to the "Fall". I see no need to deviate from Warfield's presentation. I welcome more discussion of the Supralapsarian view which would fit well in the development of the specific article on Supralapsarianism. Regards, Gomarus 08:10, 31 January 2006 (EST)

Partial table...

Supralapsarian	Infralapsarian	Amyraldian	Arminian	Semi-Pelagian	Pelagian
To create mankind
To elect some to eternal life and the rest to separation	To permit the fall of man			To permit the fall of man - physical and moral deterioration	Gift of free will whereby each may do all that is required of him

don't hae time to finish the rest of it now... but it's a start --Ymmotrojam 06:58, 26 January 2006 (EST)

The Order of Decrees
Supralapsarian	Infralapsarian	Amyraldian	Arminian	Semi-Pelagian	Pelagian
To create mankind
To elect some to eternal life and the rest to separation	To permit the fall of man			To permit the fall of man - physical and moral deterioration	Gift of free will whereby each may do all that is required of him
To permit the fall of man	To elect some to eternal life, leaving the rest to their just deserts	The atonement on Christ - where all men are made savable, with salvation conditioned on individual faith.	The atonement on Christ - where satisfaction is made for all men and all are given sufficient grace to believe, if they will	The atonement on Christ - to make possible the gift of sufficient grace and give this grace to all	Gift of the law and gospel to illminate the way and persuade men to walk in it.
The atonement on Christ - where satisfaction is made for the elect thus securing their redemption		To elect some to receive moral ability and the necessary grace to believe	To predestine to eternal life those whom He foresaw would believe of their own free will	Salvation of all who freely cooperate with this grace	Gift of Christ to (expiate past sin and) set a good example
The gift of the Holy Spirit to regenerate and sanctify the redeemed		The gift of the Holy Spirit to sanctify believers	Sanctification of all who cooperate with the sufficient grace	Sanctification by cooperation with God's grace	Acceptance of all who walk in the right way

here's a revised version with commenting to help make it easier to follow... there's probably a way to make it look a little more pleasant, but atleast the grunt work is done... --Ymmotrojam 09:00, 26 January 2006 (EST)

Deserts vs Desserts

I just noticed the recent changes ;-). btw, "Deserts" would be like the big piece of land that is all dry and stuff, while "Desserts" is like ice cream... you always want more than one (notice the two S's)... sorry, I had to say it ;-) --Ymmotrojam 08:10, 31 January 2006 (EST)

Ha! I had to look it up myself to be sure of the spelling. desert (second meaning): Something that is deserved or merited, especially a punishment. Often used in the plural: They got their just deserts when the scheme was finally uncovered. [1] Gomarus 08:38, 31 January 2006 (EST)

Well, what would you know; you learn something new every day.  : D Wooster (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2006 (EST) (As a proof that I can still be pedantic and correct, however, I would observe that there are actually three ss in desserts.)

Heck, I even had to look up the word pedantic. :-) Gomarus 10:37, 31 January 2006 (EST)

When I first saw 'deserts' in the article, I wasn't sure either - but (as the obviously indisputable authority on this or any other orthographical area) my British dictionary confirms it with the example (under meaning 2 :) )  :- "received his just deserts". Atorrens 16:55, 31 January 2006 (EST)

Great article - Thanks!

This is a brilliantly helpful article! Absolutely spot on! Thanks so much, Gomarus for your work. Atorrens 16:56, 31 January 2006 (EST)