Lap-Who???

Our Calvinist friends invest a lot of time, discussion, and effort into something called the Lapsarian debate. Ever heard of that Lutherans? I'm guessing some of you have, but many of you haven't. So in this blog I'm going to cover what the Lapsarian debate is, as well as the varying positions that are held. I'll wrap it up by how Lutheran theology views this in-house discussion amongst Calvinists.

The Lapsarian debate or discussion has to do with God's decrees in eternity past, before the foundation of the world. Traditionally, Calvinists take one of two stances in this discussion, but there are some nuanced versions of Lapsarianism as well. That being said, we'll leave the nuanced versions alone for our purposes here.

John Calvin

Reformed theology speaks of the logical order of God's decrees in eternity past. They're not so much speaking about the temporal order here. Keep in mind that all of these positions hold that all of these decrees occurred in eternity past, before the foundation of the world. In short, none of them have God decreeing something as a reaction to what man does in time.

The five topics that are ordered in this discussion are election, creation, sin, Christ's atonement, and regeneration. The four positions I will outline here all order the decrees differently. The two standard positions are called Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism. These are the two traditional Calvinist positions. There are two other decretal orders called Sublapsarianism and then of course, Arminianism. Traditional Calvinists reject Sublapsarianism as being something other than Calvinism (it's 4 point Calvinism) and of course reject Arminianism as heretical (see the Synod of Dordt, 1618-19).

 

SUPRALAPSARIANISM

Supralapsarianism logically orders God's decrees as follows.

1. Elect some and reprobate the rest.
2. Create the universe.
3. Decree the fall of man.
4. Send Christ to die for and save the elect.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.

You can pretty clearly see in Supralapsarianism, that election comes before everything. The other thing that is important to notice here is that election is logically decreed prior to the atonement. In other words, this order of God's decrees has a limited atonement for the elect alone.

Supralapsarianism is generally equated with a "high" Calvinism of sorts.

If you are interested in learning more about the Supralapsarian position, I would recommend my friend Andy Underhile's blog found here: Contra Mundum. Andy is a staunch Supralapsarian and presents the position well.

INFRALAPSARIANISM

Infralapsarianism logically orders God's decrees as follows.

1. Create the universe.
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Elect some sinful men and pass over the rest.
4. Provide Christ's atonement for the elect.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.

The main difference between Supra and Infra is that God is electing people in Infra *in view of their sin.* In other words, in Supra, God elects first, then creates the necessary conditions to bring about His election; including sin and the fall. The Supra argues that God is sovereign over everything, including sin. The Infra counters that this makes God the author of sin. And round and round the Calvinists go.

However, it still is important to point out that Infralapsarianism also places election prior to atonement and therefore has a classical Calvinist limited atonement.

SUBLAPSARIANISM

Sublapsarianism, also known as Amyraldism, is another hat in the ring of God's decrees.

Moise Amyraut - Four Points

1. Create the universe.
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Provide Christ's atonement for the whole fallen human race.
4. Elect some and reprobate the rest.
5. Regenerate the elect via the inward call of the Spirit.


Here we have Christ's atonement preceding election. Therefore, the atonement in Sublapsarianism is universal and provisional. Then this theory proceeds to say that since man is dead in sin, none will freely choose Christ and therefore God must elect some to take hold of that universal atonement.

Traditional Calvinists reject this theory as illogical and inconsistent. Many even go as far as to say that it is warmed over Arminianism.

ARMINIANISM

Arminianism is the theology that came out of Calvinism in the late 16th century and into the early 17th century.

1. Create the universe.
2. Allow the fall of man to occur.
3. Provide the atonement for the whole human race.
4. Offer Christ indiscriminately to everyone.
5. Elect those who believe.

Obviously, in this theology, it's not Calvinistic at all. It has God, in essence, looking through time and electing those who He sees will believe in Christ. Election is something done in response to human freewill here and not something that is a cause of salvation.

LUTHERANISM AND LAPSARIANISM

So, how should we as Lutherans approach this discussion? In fact, I am guessing that some of you Lutherans who read this blog wonder why I even wrote it. And to be honest, that's completely fair. I wrote it for informational purposes alone. I am of the opinion that we ought to know about other theologies. And, as a former Calvinist, that is the other theology that I can expound upon.

So again, how should we as Lutherans approach this? Where do we fall in this debate?

This should not surprise you, but we don't fall anywhere here. In fact, we reject the whole Lapsarian debate outright. But why?

Simply put, these ordering of decrees is an attempt to peer into the hidden God. From our perspective, the whole discussion really is not worth having and worth taking a stance upon. To put it in Lutheran terms, it's a theology of glory and not a theology of the cross. Instead of being focused on Christ crucified for you, it's focused on decrees in eternity past. Instead of focusing on the revealed God given for you in Christ, it's focused on the hidden God, not revealed to us to much extent in Scripture. Yes, for sure the people in these different Lapsarian camps use Holy Scripture to defend their positions. But from my perspective, none of them are slam dunks anyways. It's speculation for the most part. And speculation can be a bad thing sometimes.

So, as Lutherans, we simply do not engage in these sorts of debates most of the time. We would rather stick to the revealed Christ given for us at Calvary and then received in Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.

We may get labeled as irrational or simplistic by some of those in Reformed Theology, but really, we shouldn't care. We're not irrational or simplistic, we just have no desire to go beyond the Word into hidden topics. Or in another way, we affirm ministerial usage of reason, but not magisterial. Not all Calvinists use magisterial reason over Scripture, but sadly many do.

Hopefully this article was helpful for Lutherans to understand some of the stances out there.

Looking under Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. ~Hebrews 12:2

+Grace and Peace+