Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism are theological positions within Reformed theology that attempt to understand the logical order of God’s decrees concerning creation, the fall of humanity, election, and reprobation. These views do not address the chronological sequence of events but rather the logical priority in God’s eternal plan. Both positions seek to uphold God’s sovereignty and the doctrines of predestination and election, but they differ on the logical order in which God’s decrees were made.

Historical Background

The Reformation and Predestination

The doctrines of predestination and election are central to Reformed theology, particularly following the teachings of John Calvin. Although Calvin himself did not explicitly develop a lapsarian framework, his emphasis on God’s sovereignty and the doctrine of election laid the groundwork for later theological discussions. The lapsarian debate emerged as theologians sought to understand and articulate the relationship between God’s decrees, particularly in relation to the fall (lapsus) of humanity.

• John Calvin (1509-1564): Calvin emphasized that God’s election is based solely on His sovereign will and not on any foreseen merit or action by individuals. He taught that God predestined some to eternal life and others to eternal death according to His divine purpose.
  • Romans 9:15-16: “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” This passage reflects Calvin’s emphasis on God’s sovereignty in election.
• The Synod of Dort (1618-1619): The Synod of Dort, a key event in Reformed history, addressed the Arminian controversy and reaffirmed the doctrines of predestination and election. While the synod did not explicitly resolve the lapsarian debate, it laid the foundation for further discussions.
  • Canons of Dort: These canons articulated the Reformed understanding of election, reprobation, and the assurance of salvation, which are central to the lapsarian debate.

The Lapsarian Debate

The lapsarian debate involves different views on the logical order of God’s decrees, particularly in relation to the fall of humanity. The two primary views are Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism.

Supralapsarianism

Supralapsarianism (also known as Antelapsarianism) holds that God’s decree to elect some to salvation and reprobate others logically precedes His decree to allow the fall of humanity. In other words, God’s election and reprobation are viewed as part of His ultimate purpose to glorify Himself before He decrees the fall.

• Order of Decrees: The logical order of decrees in Supralapsarianism is often outlined as follows:
  1. Decree to glorify Himself: God’s ultimate purpose to glorify Himself through election and reprobation.
  2. Decree to elect some to salvation and others to reprobation: God chooses some individuals for salvation and others for reprobation.
  3. Decree to create: God decrees the creation of the world and humanity.
  4. Decree to permit the fall: God permits the fall of humanity into sin.
  5. Decree to provide salvation through Christ: God decrees the provision of salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
• Biblical Support: Supralapsarians often point to passages that emphasize God’s sovereignty and His ultimate purpose in election.
  • Ephesians 1:4-5: “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” This passage suggests that God’s choice of the elect was made before creation, aligning with the supralapsarian view.
  • Isaiah 46:9-10: “Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'” This passage is often cited to emphasize God’s sovereignty in His decrees.
• Theological Implications: Supralapsarianism emphasizes the glory of God as the ultimate purpose behind all of His decrees. It portrays election and reprobation as part of God’s sovereign will, determined before the creation and fall of humanity.

Critiques of Supralapsarianism

• Perceived Harshness: Critics of Supralapsarianism argue that it can make God appear arbitrary or even harsh by suggesting that He decreed the reprobation of some individuals before considering the fall. This view is often criticized for seemingly making God responsible for sin and reprobation in a way that is difficult to reconcile with His justice and goodness.
  • 1 Timothy 2:4: “Who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” This verse is often cited by critics who argue that Supralapsarianism does not adequately account for God’s desire for all to be saved.
• Limited Scriptural Support: While Supralapsarianism emphasizes God’s sovereignty, some critics argue that it lacks clear biblical support for the specific order of decrees it proposes.
• Historical Minority View: Supralapsarianism has historically been a minority view within Reformed theology. Many Reformed confessions and theologians have favored the Infralapsarian position, which is seen as more balanced and pastorally sensitive.

Infralapsarianism

Infralapsarianism (also known as Sublapsarianism) holds that God’s decree to elect some to salvation comes logically after His decree to allow the fall of humanity. In this view, God first decrees the creation and fall of humanity, and then decrees to save some through election.

• Order of Decrees: The logical order of decrees in Infralapsarianism is often outlined as follows:
  1. Decree to create the world and humanity: God decrees to create the world and humans.
  2. Decree to permit the fall: God permits the fall of humanity into sin.
  3. Decree to elect some to salvation and pass over others: God elects some individuals to salvation and passes over others, leaving them in their fallen state.
  4. Decree to provide salvation through Christ: God decrees the provision of salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
• Biblical Support: Infralapsarians often cite passages that emphasize God’s mercy and justice in response to the fallen condition of humanity.
  • Romans 8:29-30: “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” This passage is interpreted by Infralapsarians to suggest that God’s election follows His foreknowledge of humanity’s fallen state.
  • Ephesians 1:11: “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.” This verse supports the idea that God’s decrees are purposeful and work together according to His will.
• Theological Implications: Infralapsarianism emphasizes God’s response to the fallen condition of humanity, portraying election as an act of mercy rather than as a primary decree before the fall. This view is often seen as more pastorally sensitive, as it presents God’s election in the context of a world already fallen.

Critiques of Infralapsarianism

• Perceived Inconsistency: Some Supralapsarians argue that Infralapsarianism is inconsistent because it appears to make God’s decree of election contingent on the fall, potentially compromising the absolute sovereignty of God’s will.
  • Isaiah 55:8-9: “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” Supralapsarians argue that God’s decrees should not be seen as reactive but as part of His ultimate, sovereign plan.
• Logical Order vs. Chronological Order: Critics of Infralapsarianism argue that by placing the decree of election after the fall, this view risks confusing the logical order of God’s decrees with the chronological order of events in human history.

Conclusion

From a Christian worldview, Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism represent two approaches within Reformed theology to understanding the logical order of God’s eternal decrees. Both views seek to uphold God’s sovereignty, the doctrine of election, and the centrality of Christ’s atoning work, but they differ in how they understand the relationship between these elements and the fall of humanity.

Supralapsarianism emphasizes God’s ultimate purpose to glorify Himself through election and reprobation, placing these decrees before the decree to allow the fall. While it highlights God’s sovereignty, it has been critiqued for potentially making God appear arbitrary or harsh.

Infralapsarianism, on the other hand, places the decree of election after the decree to permit the fall, emphasizing God’s mercy and justice in the context of a fallen world. This view is often seen as more pastorally sensitive but has been critiqued by some for potentially compromising the absolute sovereignty of God’s will.

Both views reflect the deep concern of Reformed theologians to articulate a coherent and biblically faithful understanding of God’s eternal plan. The lapsarian debate encourages Christians to reflect on the nature of God’s decrees, the mystery of predestination, and the assurance of salvation in Christ, ultimately leading to a deeper trust in God’s sovereign and gracious purposes.