1

Fundamentals of the Lapsarian Controversy

Lapsarian (Latin = to fall) refers to the order of decrees in relation to the Fall. The decree, of course, is one, it is not a succession of events in the mind of God. Strong says,

The decrees are many only to our finite comprehension; in their own nature they are but one plan, which embraces not only effects but also causes, not only the ends to be secured but also the means needful to secure them.[1]

To protect against the objection that God must be impersonal or arbitrary since has decreed all things, both cause and effect, to assure His desired ends we would do well to speak of the decree rather as God’s “plan”. “The word “plan” is preferable to the word “decrees” because “plan” excludes the ideas of (1) plurality, (2) short-sightedness, (3) arbitrariness, (4) compulsion.”[2] Chafer speaks of the decree this way when he says, “the plan of God which has proceeded in all His acts of creation and continuation.”[3] Because of man’s temporal and mental limitations he can claim that God’s plan as one act but he can only exclaim it as a succession of cause/effect events as manifested in history. Thus, when we speak of God’s plan we must speak of it first as one plan, and only second as how the cause/effect elements of the plan are related according to logic. Several logical orders of the plan of God have been put forth; in the Calvinist schools we have Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, and Sublapsarianism, in the Amyraldian schools we have Hypothetical Universalist and Modified Salmurian, and in the Arminian schools we have Lutheran and Wesleyan. Each of these seven views of God’s plan in relation to the Fall differ either in the logical order of the decree, the extent of atonement, or the extent of personal involvement in a given cause/effect.

The Issue Stated. The differences between these three schools of thought are found in three areas.

1) The logical order of the decrees

2) The extent of the atonement

3) The extent of personal involvement in a given cause/effect.[4]

The Logical Order of the Decrees. All views claim that they are logical orders. What really matters then is what fundamental axioms form the basis for subsequent logical investigation. For the Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian Calvinists, they logically start with the

notion that there is one principle, like that of the all-controlling counsel of God, from which a series of logical deductions may be made with respect to what must take place in history,[5]

What this means, in short, is that they logically start with a concept of “decree” that permits only one all-controlling decree which controls both the end and the means to the end. All concepts of antecedent decrees within the decree of God are denied. The Calvinist Infralapsarians lean more toward history in their logical order when they claim

that there are a series of historical facts from which inductions may be made with respect to what must be the order of the decrees of God.[6]

Sublapsarians, the third branch of Calvinists, differ with Infralapsarians at only one point in the order. Nevertheless, the difference has far-reaching implications in terms of at least three areas; extent of the atonement, faith, and assurance. Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism are a priori bound up in seeing the end to the extent that it determines the means to that end, resulting in the downplay of actual history. For example, if at the end of history only certain individuals are saved then it logically follows that the means to that end was that Christ died only for those certain individuals. Subsequent interpretive gymnastics are then applied to Scriptures that proclaim that Christ died for the “whole world”, “all men”, or “everyone” in order to make the text fit their order of the decrees, which, we might note, are speculative at best. Sublapsarianism does not have to resort to hermeneutical gymnastics because it affirms a universal atonement on the basis of certain texts which seem to teach that Christ died for the each individual (cf. John 3:16; Rom. 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; 1 John 2:2, et. al). This conclusion is reached a posteriori the Scriptural facts. Their subsequent order of the decrees reflects this understanding. I have reserved to confine the implications for faith and assurance under those sections respectively.[7]

For the Amyraldian schools and the Calvinist Sublapsarians they start with Scripture to try and elucidate the logical order of the divine decrees. While Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism see only one all controlling decree that decrees both the end and the means to the end, Amyraldians and Sublapsarians affirm that God has one plan for history but that within that decree He can have other, exclusive decrees. In other words, they are convinced that the Bible teaches antecedent decrees. So, while the decree certainly decrees the end, it does not directly control the means to that end. Rather, an unconditional antecedent decree within the larger decree directly controls certain aspects of history. These individuals tend to lean away from the doctrine of reprobation (God damns the non-elect), preferring the less harsh term, preterition (God passed by the non-elect, cf. Chafer).

For the Arminian Schools of Wesley and Luther they start with the “free will” of man. This results in a synergistic view of history. This a priori “free will” doctrine wreaks havoc on God’s plan for history, making it a joint product. Who could really know where history was going if this were true? This is an idea more akin to paganism than biblical Christianity.

The Extent of the Atonement. Both Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism place the decree to elect/reprobate before the decree to provide salvation. Therefore, both teach a particular redemption under one all controlling decree. The design of the atonement was therefore, only for the elect. Sublapsarianism, Amyraldian schools, and Arminian schools place the decree to elect/preterition after the decree to provide salvation. Therefore, these views teach an unlimited atonement and a decree with antecedent decrees. The major differences between the latter view is under the extension of the personal element in a given cause/effect.

The Extension of the Personal Element in a Given Cause/Effect. This difference, more than any other divides the Sublapsarian Calvinists and Amyraldian schools from the Arminian schools. Sublapsarians and Amyraldians secure the acts of men within the unconditional decree or antecedent decrees within that decree of God as do Supra- and Infralapsarians. While Arminian schools do affirm antecedent decrees the level of personal involvement in a given cause/effect is increased to the point where most things are a joint-product between God and man. This means that God, working with man, will secure the end product of history. Such product may be known (divine foreknowledge) but it is certainly not determined. It is at this point where Arminian schools depart from biblical Christianity in order to support the a prior pagan assumption of human “free will”.

While there are certainly other distinctions between the various views they are merely superficial in comparison to the three highlighted above.

The Logical Order of the Divine Decrees[8]

Supralapsarian	Infralapsarian	Sublapsarian	Amyraldian	Amyraldian	Lutheran	Wesleyan
Hyper-Calvinists	Moderate Calvinists	Moderate Calvinists	Modified Salmurian	Hypothetical Universalists	Moderate Arminian	Arminian
1. To elect some and reprobate others	To create man	To create man	To create man	To create man		To create man
2. To create man	To permit the fall of man	To permit the fall of man	To permit the fall of man	To permit the fall of man		To permit the fall of man
3. To permit the fall	To elect some to eternal life	To provide a ransom price for all	To provide a ransom price for all	To provide a ransom for all men equally	To provide a ransom for all men	To remit guilt of original sin of all men through Christ
4. To procure salvation for the elect through the atonement	To procure salvation for the elect through the atonement	To elect some to eternal life through faith	To elect those foreknown to believe	To elect some to moral ability to believe	To give to all men the means of salvation and moral ability	To elect those foreknown to believe and persevere
5. To regenerate the elect by irresistible work of Holy Spirit	To regenerate the elect by irresistible work of Holy Spirit	To convict the world of sin	To convict the world of sin	To regenerate those who believe	To elect those foreknown to believe and persevere
		To regenerate the elect by irresistible work of Holy Spirit	To regenerate those who believe
John Gill & John Owen	J.O. Buswell & Charles Hodge	L. S. Chafer, A.H. Strong, Van Osterzee, & Robert Lightner	H.C. Thiessen & Samuel Fisk	John Cameron, Moise Amyraut, & Richard Baxter		Miley, Watson, & Pope