Exploring Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism

 

Lapsarianism is a theological framework within Reformed theology that addresses the logical order of God’s decrees concerning predestination, the fall of humanity, and salvation. Derived from the Latin term lapsus (meaning "fall"), lapsarianism focuses on the sequence in which God’s eternal decrees were made relative to the fall of Adam and Eve. The two primary positions within this debate are Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, which differ in how they understand the logical priority of God’s decrees regarding election, reprobation, and the fall. This article explores the origins, distinctions, arguments, and implications of these perspectives, providing a balanced overview of their significance in Christian theology.Historical Context of LapsarianismThe lapsarian debate emerged prominently during the Protestant Reformation, particularly within the Reformed tradition, as theologians grappled with questions of divine sovereignty, human responsibility, and the nature of God’s eternal plan. Rooted in the theology of John Calvin and further developed by his successors, the debate became a focal point in the 17th century during the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), which addressed Arminianism and solidified Reformed doctrines of predestination.
Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism represent two interpretations of how God’s decrees relate to the fall. These positions do not concern the temporal order of events (as God’s decrees are eternal) but rather the logical order in which God’s purposes are structured in His divine will. The question is whether God decreed to elect some to salvation and reprobate others before considering the fall (Supralapsarianism) or after considering the fall (Infralapsarianism).Supralapsarianism: The Decree Before the FallSupralapsarianism (from Latin supra, meaning "above" or "before," and lapsus, meaning "fall") posits that God’s decree of election and reprobation logically precedes His decree to permit the fall. In this view, God’s primary intention is to manifest His glory through the salvation of the elect and the reprobation of the non-elect. The fall and the means of salvation (e.g., Christ’s atonement) are subsequent decrees that serve this ultimate purpose.
The logical order of God’s decrees in Supralapsarianism can be summarized as follows:

1. God decrees to elect some individuals to salvation and reprobate others to demonstrate His glory (in mercy and justice).
2. God decrees the fall of humanity as a means to achieve this purpose.
3. God decrees to provide salvation through Jesus Christ for the elect.
4. God decrees the creation of the world and humanity to enact these purposes.

Supralapsarians argue that this view emphasizes God’s sovereignty and the primacy of His glory. By placing election and reprobation first, Supralapsarianism suggests that God’s ultimate goal is to display His attributes—mercy in saving the elect and justice in condemning the reprobate—rather than responding to human sin as a secondary consideration. Prominent theologians associated with Supralapsarianism include Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor, and some later Reformed thinkers like William Twisse.
Arguments for Supralapsarianism:

• Primacy of God’s Glory: Supralapsarians assert that God’s glory is the central purpose of creation, and election/reprobation are the primary means of displaying His attributes.
• Logical Consistency: By prioritizing election, this view aligns with a high view of divine sovereignty, where all events, including the fall, serve God’s eternal purpose.
• Scriptural Support: Supralapsarians often cite passages like Romans 9:21–23, where Paul describes God preparing vessels of mercy and wrath to display His glory, suggesting a divine plan that precedes human actions.

Criticisms of Supralapsarianism:

• Perceived Harshness: Critics argue that Supralapsarianism makes God the author of sin by decreeing reprobation before the fall, raising questions about divine justice.
• Complexity: The view can seem abstract, as it considers election/reprobation apart from the context of human sinfulness.
• Historical Minority: Supralapsarianism has historically been less widely accepted than Infralapsarianism within Reformed theology.

Infralapsarianism: The Decree After the FallInfralapsarianism (from Latin infra, meaning "below" or "after," and lapsus) holds that God’s decree to permit the fall logically precedes His decree to elect some to salvation and pass over others (reprobation). In this view, God considers humanity as fallen and sinful before decreeing salvation for the elect. The fall is not a means to an end (as in Supralapsarianism) but a condition that God responds to with His decrees of election and reprobation.
The logical order of God’s decrees in Infralapsarianism is typically:

1. God decrees to create the world and humanity.
2. God decrees to permit the fall, resulting in a sinful human race.
3. God decrees to elect some to salvation through Christ and pass over others (reprobation).
4. God decrees the means of salvation (Christ’s atonement) for the elect.

Infralapsarians emphasize that God’s decrees operate within the context of human sinfulness, portraying election as an act of mercy toward a fallen race. This view was endorsed by the majority at the Synod of Dort and is reflected in major Reformed confessions like the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Canons of Dort.
Arguments for Infralapsarianism:

• Alignment with Human Responsibility: By placing the fall before election, Infralapsarianism emphasizes that humanity’s sinfulness is the context for God’s decrees, avoiding the perception that God decrees sin.
• Scriptural Emphasis: Infralapsarians point to passages like Ephesians 1:4–5, which describe election in the context of Christ’s redemptive work, suggesting God’s response to a fallen world.
• Pastoral Sensitivity: This view is often seen as less speculative and more pastorally accessible, focusing on God’s mercy toward sinners.

Criticisms of Infralapsarianism:

• Subordination of God’s Glory: Critics argue that Infralapsarianism subordinates God’s ultimate purpose (His glory) to a response to human sin, potentially undermining divine sovereignty.
• Logical Tension: Some Supralapsarians claim that Infralapsarianism introduces a reactive element to God’s decrees, as if God’s plan adjusts to human actions.

Key Differences and ImplicationsThe primary difference between Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism lies in the logical priority of God’s decrees:

• Purpose vs. Response: Supralapsarianism sees the fall as a means to God’s purpose of displaying His glory through election and reprobation. Infralapsarianism sees election as God’s merciful response to a fallen humanity.
• View of Reprobation: Supralapsarianism explicitly decrees reprobation as part of God’s plan, while Infralapsarianism typically frames reprobation as God’s passing over the non-elect, emphasizing divine permission rather than active decree.
• Theological Tone: Supralapsarianism is often seen as more speculative and focused on divine sovereignty, while Infralapsarianism is considered more practical and contextually grounded in human sin.

Both views affirm core Reformed doctrines: God’s sovereignty, human depravity, and unconditional election. However, they differ in how they conceptualize the relationship between these truths and the fall. The debate has significant implications for how theologians and believers understand God’s character, the purpose of creation, and the nature of salvation.Contemporary RelevanceWhile the lapsarian debate was most intense in the 17th century, it remains relevant in theological education and Reformed circles. The discussion highlights enduring questions about divine sovereignty and human responsibility, influencing preaching, pastoral care, and apologetic approaches. For example, Supralapsarianism’s emphasis on God’s glory can inspire awe at divine majesty, while Infralapsarianism’s focus on mercy resonates with evangelistic outreach.
Critics outside the Reformed tradition, such as Arminians or open theists, often reject both positions, arguing that they overemphasize divine determinism at the expense of human free will. Within Reformed theology, however, the debate is less about orthodoxy and more about nuance, as both views are considered acceptable within confessional boundaries.ConclusionLapsarianism, through its Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian perspectives, offers a window into the complexity of Reformed theology’s understanding of God’s eternal decrees.
Supralapsarianism prioritizes God’s glory and sovereignty, placing election and reprobation before the fall, while Infralapsarianism emphasizes God’s merciful response to a fallen humanity, placing the fall before election. Both views seek to uphold the biblical truths of divine sovereignty, human sinfulness, and the centrality of Christ’s redemptive work, differing only in their logical ordering of God’s decrees. While the debate may seem esoteric, it reflects a deep commitment to understanding God’s purposes and character, inviting believers to marvel at the wisdom and mystery of divine providence.