Last night, I listened to one of the more interesting
conversations I have been involved in lately. The discussion concerned the
eternal decree. I have no intention of retreading the strength and weaknesses
of my infralapsarian position, so relax. The issue had not been presented to me
in proper context before as it should have been, perhaps because I did not
understand the conditions of the discussion. The key factor is the issue of
timelessness. Last spring, the issue of timelessness and the application of
this concept to eschatology by Pannenberg was an enlightening moment,
and quite persuasive, I might add. So, it seemed quite logical to apply the
same concept of timelessness to the eternal decree, in fact, in retrospect, how
else would you do it?!
Let’s examine first the paradigm that is overriding this
discussion. We have two realms, two realities, two Kingdoms. The First realm is
the realm of God. In this realm of God, He is timeless, omniscient,
omnipresent, omnipotent. The second realm is creation. It is helpful to
consider that if space is created, so is the linear (calm down physicists)
aspect of time. Even if you want to discuss curved space time, quantum physics
and time travel, there is an aspect of time that is in constant motion, that is
inseparable from the concept of space. Time is the fourth dimension. Time is as
much a part of space and creation as matter and energy. This is a key point to
bring forward into the discussion of the eternal decree.
For the purpose of review and to introduce the parts of the
eternal decree, let us consider as example the infralapsarian position. The eternal
decree is ordered as follows:
- · Decree to create
- · Decree to allow the fall of man (all men)
- · Decree to discriminate or for the election of some men
- · Decree to save the elect by Christ
- · Decree to apply salvation in Christ to the elect
Several book keeping points need stating. First, infralapsarianism
is a Calvinist position, an in house discussion, if you will. The purpose of
this discussion is not to argue the issue of the elect. I could have taken the
example of the eternal decree from the Amyraldian position instead as the example, but I don’t
find that helpful in the long term in my persuasion to a reformed position to
use other arguments as my example. But what follows works with ANY of the
versions of the eternal decree. Second, and most importantly, this ordering is
a logical order, not a chronological order.
That this is a logical ordering is the point from which we
will carry forward. The issue concerning the eternal decree is to look at the mind
of God prior to creation and try and understand what He was thinking when he
got around to creation. The point that we need to insert here is that time is a
part of creation, but not a part of the realm of God. God is outside of time.
There is a great creaturely temptation to deal with discussions of the eternal
decree in chronological fashion, but this is an error. The discussion is in
terms of logical ordering and needs to be emptied of any notion of chronological
ordering. The reason for this distinction is important in other areas of
theological discussion, but it should be kept in mind here as a fundamental principle of
the eternal decree.
This is difficult, of course, for the creaturely mind to
comprehend. The creature is created within the space-time continuum where time
is part of the fabric of our existence. This is why Calvin warns us against
actually contemplating this issue. This decree is outside of the realm of
creatures and outside of progressive revelation as given us in Scripture. But
in our creaturely desire to understand the divine, we make this attempt.
Finally, we come to the meat of this discussion: creation.
The Genesis 1-2 text has been discussed abundantly, and with particular zeal
over the past couple of years within the context of the BioLogos debate. If you
recall, the cornerstone of the BioLogos position is that science is not at odds
with Scripture in the creation debate. Their rationalizations are interesting,
but miss this key theological point. God exists and creation occurs. God is
outside of time and time is an inextricable part of creation. This is important
for the Genesis discussion precisely because of the issue of time.
Back in 1954, Meredith Kline proposed the two register
approach to this text. The key feature of this construct was to view the
Genesis text as a separate literary genre, creation genre, rather than a
historical narrative as most of the conversation about this text tends to do. I
have given this link many times in the past, and hopefully it will work for
you, but here
is the updated Kline article from four decades later. The reason that this view of Genesis appeals to me so much is the
following logical construct.
If we assume that the eternal decree is outside of time,
because God is outside of time, then the decree to create is outside of time.
The logical ordering of creation will likewise be outside of time. Scripture is
by its very existence within creation is God’s revelation to man and subject to
the confines of space time. But this does not mean that God would reveal to man
a logical construct that takes place outside of time with the intention of the
application of chronological principles to that revelation. It makes far better
sense to consider the Genesis 1-2 text within the timelessness of God’s realm.
God introduces time as a part of creation. Logical order of creation takes
place prior to creation. Logically, one must first conceive of a thing before
one makes a thing. This is not true of God in a timeless realm, but it is
impossible to convey logical order without the danger of perception within a
chronological order within the realm of creation.
Perhaps the very issues of apparent contradiction seen
between the two chapters are meant to point exactly to the issue of logical
order and not to chronological order. Only by their difference does Scripture
draw attention to the notion that it is the revelation of creation ORDER and
not a creation TIMELINE that is revealed in Genesis 1-2. The important issue of
the Genesis 1-2 text is the position or role of man in the creation order. The
eternal decree that includes creation is outside of time, and time is only
introduced into creation at the point of creation. A revelation of the eternal
order of our role within creation should be viewed from the context of the
eternal decree and not from the view within creation itself. That is the fallacy
of using chronological arguments in this portion of divine revelation.
It can be argued to extend this point to Genesis 3, but that
is a massively huge jump, and one that cannot be made with any sort of
certainty. The notion of Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity rather than
their human primacy does seem to fit with the logical argument of the prior
chapters. The expulsion from Eden would mark the beginning of historical
narrative, their entering into that portion of creation that is no longer both
in this realm and the realm of God and thereby subject to the rule of time. The
Kline literary framework model does not include the Eden section, but I would
argue that it may well belong with the prior chapters rather than with the
subsequent.
So, in summary, the arguments for Calvinism and the extra-Biblical
eternal decree lead one logically to a view of the creation revelation
Scripture to be viewed in a similar logical ordering model rather than a
chronological ordering model. This is consistent both with inerrancy and infallibility
as we are viewing the text (correctly) in a proper context using the framework
paradigm. This view of Genesis 1-2 as logical ordering allows the position that
science and Genesis 1-2 are not contradictory.
--Troll--
--Troll--
