My View on Lapsarianism

I think lapsarianism, both Supra and Infra, errs in purporting to answer an unanswerable question: in eternity past which decision of God came before the other, creation of the world, creation of man, allowing man to fall into sin, choosing to save some of them. In a temporal perspective it would be reasonable to sequence the creation of man prior to the decisions about his sin and salvation (or not). But in an eternal perspective I don’t think such temporal reasoning must necessarily prevail.

A ChatGPT query on the historical development of lapsarian theology said this of Calvin’s position:

Calvin:

• Affirms unconditional election strongly
• Refuses speculative ordering of decrees
• Frequently warns against “curious inquiry”

Lapsus means “the Fall”. Supra means “before”, and Infra means “after.” The two points of view, Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, are about the logical sequence (not the chronological sequence) of God’s decrees/decisions before time pertaining to man, the Fall, and God’s election. Supralapsarianism says God’s decrees of election and reprobation (e.g. not electing some) logically PRECEDED His decision to permit the Fall to occur. Its emphasis is on God’s sovereignty. Infralapsarianism says God’s decrees of election and reprobation logically FOLLOWED His decision to permit the Fall. Its emphasis is on God’s redemptive intentions through Christ. Infralapsarians see in Rm 9 and Eph 1 references to salvation of sinners, not just divine decisions of election/reprobation of people viewed as sinless (the supra. position = deciding BEFORE deciding about the Fall). The Westminster Confession supports the infralapsarian position (which I too think best fits the Rm 9 and Eph 1 scriptures, for what it’s worth). This has been a debate among theologians for a few hundred years.

My view is this is a debate about an unanswerable question and, unless the wrong view undermines accurate Scriptural understanding, the debate is a waste of time.