How do supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, and sublapsarianism differ? Introduction Supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, and sublapsarianism all revolve around the question of how, in eternity past, God ordered His decrees concerning creation, the Fall, election (the choosing of some for salvation), and the provision of redemption for humankind. While all three positions affirm God’s absolute sovereignty and foreknowledge, they differ in the sequence of events in God’s eternal plan. Below is a comprehensive examination of each position, citing scriptural references from the Berean Standard Bible. The Background of the “Lapsarian” Debates The term “lapsarian” comes from the Latin word lapsus, meaning “fall.” The discussion centers on whether God’s plan of election and reprobation (His choice to save some and pass over others) logically occurred before or after He decreed to permit sin (the Fall). All three views accept: • God’s foreknowledge. • God’s eternality (He is not bound by time). • The necessity of redemption through Christ’s sacrifice. Yet they differ in the logical (not chronological) ordering of God’s decisions. This is not about temporal sequence (God, being eternal, is outside of time) but rather about how these decrees logically interrelate. Supralapsarianism Supralapsarianism comes from the Latin supra (“above” or “before”) and lapsus (“fall”). It denotes that God’s decree to elect some individuals and pass over others logically comes before the decree to permit the Fall. 1. Logical Order of Decrees • First: God’s decree to glorify Himself through election and reprobation. • Second: God’s decree to create those specific people. • Third: God’s decree to allow the Fall. • Fourth: God’s decree to provide salvation for the elect alone. 2. God’s Ultimate Purpose In supralapsarian thought, God’s central focus is on His glory manifesting through the display of both mercy (on the elect) and justice (on the non-elect). Proponents often cite passages like Romans 9:22–23: “What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath prepared for destruction? What if He did so to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy…?” 3. Common Emphasis Supralapsarians emphasize God’s overarching sovereignty. They highlight verses like Ephesians 1:4: “For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence…” They maintain that God determined from the outset which individuals would be saved and which would not, with the Fall itself serving to accomplish this grand plan. Infralapsarianism Infralapsarianism is derived from the Latin infra (“below” or “after”) and lapsus (“fall”). It posits that God’s decree of election presupposes the Fall. People in this view argue that God’s choosing of some to salvation took into account humanity’s fallen condition rather than preceding the decision to allow the Fall. 1. Logical Order of Decrees • First: God’s decree to create humanity. • Second: God’s decree to permit the Fall. • Third: God’s decree to elect some from among fallen humanity. • Fourth: God’s decree to provide redemption in Christ for the elect. 2. Maintaining Divine Sovereignty and Human Guilt Infralapsarians hold strongly to God’s sovereignty, yet they also emphasize that humanity’s fallen state is recognized and factored into election. Ephesians 1:11 is often highlighted: “In Him we were also chosen as God’s own, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything by the counsel of His will…” 3. Point of Distinction The key difference is that God’s decree to elect individuals is seen as taking place after He has determined to allow the Fall. Thus, God’s plan of redemption is for people already considered in their sinful state. Sublapsarianism Sublapsarianism, much like infralapsarianism, sees the decree of election as occurring after the decree to permit the Fall. Some theologians merge sublapsarianism into infralapsarianism, especially since the two terms are occasionally used interchangeably. Others suggest a nuanced adjustment in the ordering, often placing the decree for redemption before the decree of election. 1. Defining the Sequence While there can be slight variations, the general sublapsarian sequence often looks like this: • First: God’s decree to create. • Second: God’s decree to permit the Fall. • Third: God’s decree to provide salvation sufficient for all (by the atonement of Christ). • Fourth: God’s decree to elect some out of the fallen multitude to receive that salvation. 2. Emphasis on a Universal Offer Sublapsarians highlight the universal offer of salvation extended to all, even while holding to the particular nature of election for some. Verses such as 1 Timothy 2:3–4 show that God “desires all men to be saved,” and John 3:16 demonstrates the global scope of Christ’s saving invitation: “For God so loved the world…” 3. Functional Similarities to Infralapsarianism Sublapsarianism, like infralapsarianism, recognizes that election applies to those who are already viewed as fallen. The subtlety is whether God’s provision through Christ logically precedes the identification of the specific elect or not. Points of Agreement Among the Three Views 1. God’s Sovereignty All three positions strongly affirm that God is entirely sovereign, and that nothing—neither creation nor the Fall—takes Him by surprise (Isaiah 46:10). 2. Redemption in Christ Each perspective holds that salvation is only through Christ’s redemptive work (Romans 3:24–25). There is no variance in the belief that Christ’s atoning sacrifice is the basis for redeeming sinners. 3. Scriptural Affirmations All see Scripture as the ultimate authority in defining the nature of God’s decrees (2 Timothy 3:16). While each vantage point looks to many of the same passages, it is the interpretation and ordering that differs. Theological and Practical Reflections 1. God’s Character and Human Responsibility Lapsarian discussions often lead to questions about God’s love, justice, and mercy. Some find comfort in the fact that God is entirely in control; others wrestle with how human responsibility fits into election (Romans 9:14–21). 2. Embracing Mystery Because these views delve into the eternal counsels of God, there is a reminder that finite minds may never fully comprehend the complete picture of God’s plan (Deuteronomy 29:29). Believers can acknowledge the mystery while still affirming that God’s ways are good, righteous, and perfect (Psalm 19:7–9). 3. Encouragement Toward Worship Delving into these doctrines should not merely be an academic exercise but should lead to deeper reverence and worship of God who provides salvation out of His gracious will (Ephesians 2:8–9). Conclusion Supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, and sublapsarianism each attempt to interpret Scripture’s revelation about God’s eternal decrees in a way that upholds the truths of God’s sovereignty, humanity’s fallen condition, and salvation through Christ. The primary differences rest in the logical order assigned to God’s plans for creation, the Fall, and the atonement. Despite these distinctions, all agree on the core essentials: God’s supremacy, human sinfulness, and the necessity of Christ’s redemptive work. Ultimately, the consideration of these positions should encourage respectful study of Scripture, humble acknowledgment of finite understanding, and a faithful response to God’s redemptive plan. “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen.” (Romans 11:36). |
    |