Infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism are three positions within Reformed theology that seek to address the logical order of God’s decrees in relation to the Fall of humanity into sin. They arise from an attempt to reconcile the sovereignty of God with the freedom of human actions.
The Latin roots of the terms point to their meaning. “Infra” means “below or after,” “sub” means “under or below,” and “supra” means “above.” So infralapsarianism places the decree regarding the Fall after other decrees, sublapsarianism places it under other decrees, and supralapsarianism places it before other decrees.
Specifically, the question is when the decree to permit the Fall fits into the logical order of God’s eternal decrees. The three main options are:
- Infralapsarianism – God’s decree to elect some people to salvation came after His decree to permit the Fall.
- Sublapsarianism – God’s decree to permit the Fall came after His decree to create people.
- Supralapsarianism – God’s decree to permit the Fall came before His decree to elect certain people.
In infralapsarianism, the order is:
- God’s decree to create
- God’s decree to permit the Fall
- God’s decree to elect some people to salvation
- God’s decree to provide salvation through Jesus Christ
In sublapsarianism, the order is:
- God’s decree to create
- God’s decree to elect some people to salvation
- God’s decree to permit the Fall
- God’s decree to provide salvation through Jesus Christ
In supralapsarianism, the order is:
- God’s decree to elect some people to salvation
- God’s decree to create
- God’s decree to permit the Fall
- God’s decree to provide salvation through Jesus Christ
Let’s look at some key points about each position:
Infralapsarianism
- God first decreed to create humanity with the ability to obey or disobey.
- God then decreed to allow humanity to fall into sin through disobedience.
- After that, God elected some people to salvation.
- Finally, God decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ.
In this view, election to salvation is seen as occurring after the Fall. God chooses whom to save out of fallen humanity. The Fall is not specifically planned but permitted by God. This position is sometimes called “sublapsarianism” but the names can overlap.
Sublapsarianism
- God first decreed to create humanity.
- God then chose some people to be saved through election.
- After that, God decreed to permit the Fall.
- Lastly, God decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ.
In this view, election occurs before the Fall, but the Fall is still not decreed directly by God. He allows it to happen after choosing whom to save. Sublapsarianism emphasizes God’s sovereignty over human freedom more than infralapsarianism.
Supralapsarianism
- First, God elected some people to salvation.
- Second, God decreed to create humanity.
- After that, God decreed to permit the Fall of humanity.
- Finally, God decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ.
In this view, election to salvation precedes even creation or the Fall. The Fall is seen as part of God’s direct plan to glorify himself by demonstrating mercy on some people. Supralapsarianism emphasizes God’s sovereignty over human freedom the most.
While the three positions differ in the logical order of God’s decrees, they all agree that:
- God is absolutely sovereign over everything that happens.
- Humanity is still responsible for sin.
- God elected some people to salvation based on His grace alone.
- Christ’s atonement was the only way to accomplish salvation.
Key Bible Passages
There are many biblical texts that relate to this issue without fully settling it. Here are some important ones:
Ephesians 1:4-6 – According to His choice, He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. God did this before creation. This passage supports supralapsarianism.
Romans 9:10-24 – When Rebekah’s children had not yet been born, God chose Jacob over Esau. He has mercy on whom He chooses. This passage could support any of the three views.
1 Peter 1:20 – Christ was foreknown before creation. This implies election happened before creation, supporting supralapsarianism.
Acts 2:23 – Jesus was delivered up according to God’s plan. But men acted freely in crucifying Him. This passage supports God’s sovereignty and human freedom.
Genesis 1-3 – The creation and Fall narrative does not explicitly mention predestination. It allows for varying interpretations.
As seen above, there is no definitive passage settling the issue. Good arguments can be made from Scripture for each position.
Historical Background
When and how did this issue arise in church history? Here is some background:
- Augustine (354-430) spoke of predestination but did not emphasize the logical order of decrees.
- Peter Lombard (1100-1160) argued the order was: create, elect, permit Fall, save.
- Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) affirmed Lombard’s order but allowed for debate.
- Francis Turretin (1623-1687) first formulated the distinct supralapsarian view.
- The Westminster Confession (1646) adopted infralapsarianism.
In summary, discussion of God’s decrees became more sophisticated in the medieval period. Supralapsarianism arose last as an extreme view of God’s control. The infralapsarian position has enjoyed the most support throughout history.
Theological Implications
What are the major theological implications of these different orders of decrees? Here are some key ones:
- God’s sovereignty – Supralapsarianism emphasizes this the most, followed by sublapsarianism, then infralapsarianism.
- Human freedom – Infralapsarianism emphasizes this the most, followed by sublapsarianism, then supralapsarianism.
- Extent of the atonement – Limited atonement fits better with supralapsarianism. Unlimited atonement fits better with infralapsarianism.
- God’s motives – Supralapsarianism portrays election as primary. Infralapsarianism portrays redemption as primary.
So there are major differences in how the positions relate to important doctrines. The logical order leads to divergent theologies.
Comparison to Calvinism and Arminianism
These three views only relate to the order of decrees, not predestination itself. How do they compare to Calvinism and Arminianism?
- Calvinism affirms unconditional election like all three views do.
- Arminianism denies unconditional election in favor of conditional election.
- But both Calvinism and Arminianism could theoretically affirm any of the three orders of decrees.
For example, a Calvinist could be infralapsarian, sublapsarian, or supralapsarian. An Arminian could also have varying orders of decrees. The two concepts are not directly tied together.
Objections and Responses
What are some common objections made against these views? And how might a supporter respond?
Against Infralapsarianism:
Objection: If God first created humans, He would be responsible for their fall into sin.
Response: God permitted the Fall without directly causing it. Also, His later decrees show that He planned redemption.
Against Sublapsarianism:
Objection: Election seems like an afterthought if it comes after creation.
Response: The decree of election was still logically prior to the Fall being permitted.
Against Supralapsarianism:
Objection: This makes God directly responsible for the Fall as part of His plan.
Response: God remains holy and humans are still responsible for sin.
Which Position is Correct?
All three positions have biblical support and reasonable defenders. Is there a definitive way to determine which is correct? Here are a few thoughts on deciding:
- None have overwhelming biblical evidence over the others.
- All three essentially agree on God’s sovereignty and human freedom.
- One’s theology on other issues (like the extent of atonement) may guide preference.
- Historically, infralapsarianism has been the most prominent view.
- God’s inscrutable decrees may remain mysterious to humans.
In conclusion, there are good biblical arguments for each view of the logical decrees. Infralapsarianism affirms both God’s sovereignty and meaningful human freedom. Sublapsarianism upholds God’s sovereignty in election. Supralapsarianism emphasizes God’s control over all things. Throughout church history, infralapsarianism has been the most accepted position. So while the topic remains disputed, infralapsarianism likely offers the best overall balance for understanding God’s decrees.