Related Articles
A spiritual guide, accessible and profound, to understand a key dilemma in the history of Christian thought
Introduction: Why does an ancient theological debate still matter today?
Sometimes, theological debates seem confined to seminary classrooms or past councils. However, some of them directly affect our understanding of God, our relationship with Him, and the way we live out our faith. One such debate, lesser-known but profoundly significant, is that of sublapsarianism—a controversy that, although it arose in a Reformed context, touches upon essential aspects of Christian theology: grace, predestination, human freedom, and divine mercy.
To speak of sublapsarianism today is not merely to revive an intellectual dispute. It is to open the heart to a question that every believer inevitably asks: What is God’s heart like in His relationship with fallen mankind? This article seeks to be a clear, deep, and pastoral guide to understanding this concept—its history, theological importance, and, above all, its spiritual application to our daily lives.
I. Origin of the Debate: What is Sublapsarianism?
The word sublapsarianism comes from the Latin sub lapsu, meaning “after the fall.” It is a theological current that tries to logically order God’s eternal decrees concerning creation, the fall of man, and predestination.
This concept emerged within post-Reformation Calvinism, as a response to the question: In what logical order—not chronological—did God establish His eternal decrees regarding humanity?
Sublapsarianism holds that God, in His eternal design:
- Decreed to create humanity.
- Decreed to permit the fall (original sin).
- Decreed to choose some for salvation (the elect) and to permit others, because of their sins, to be lost.
- Decreed to send Christ as Redeemer of the elect.
- Decreed to send the Holy Spirit to apply the redemption.
It is important to note that this is a logical order, not a chronological one. No one claims that God “changes His mind” or “waits for something to happen” before acting. Theology speaks of eternal decrees, all present in God from all eternity. But logically ordering them helps us better understand how God acts, according to His justice, wisdom, and mercy.
II. Supralapsarianism: The Other Side of the Debate
To understand sublapsarianism, it is necessary to know its counterpart: supralapsarianism (from the Latin supra lapsum, “before the fall”).
This school of thought affirms that, in the logical order of God’s decrees:
- God decreed to elect some to glory and reprobate others to condemnation.
- Then He decreed to create all men.
- He decreed to permit the fall.
- He decreed to redeem the elect through Christ.
- He decreed to apply this redemption.
According to this view, God would have thought of election and reprobation even before creation and the permission of sin. This results in an image of God centered more on His absolute sovereignty, but also—according to some—more difficult to reconcile with the notion of divine mercy and universal love.
III. Even the Saints Disagreed: A Debate That Divided the Faithful
Although this dispute was most prominent among the Reformed, the question of the order of God’s decrees has also been addressed—with nuances—within Catholic tradition. However, within Protestantism, the confrontation between sublapsarians and supralapsarians was so intense that even saints, pastors, and deeply devout theologians took sides.
For example, Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva, leaned toward supralapsarianism. Meanwhile, other reformers like François Turretin and many Dutch pastors from the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) defended sublapsarian positions.
Why such passion over a seemingly technical issue? Because, in the end, it wasn’t just about logic. It was about the image of God presented to the faithful. Is God a being who decides to condemn before even foreseeing the fall? Or is He a Father who, seeing the misery of His fallen children, chooses to save some with unfathomable mercy?
IV. The Catholic Perspective: Grace, Freedom, and Mystery
The Catholic Church has not officially adopted either of these two positions as defined doctrine. However, it has reflected deeply on these issues, especially since the Council of Trent, which addressed the relationship between grace and human freedom in response to Protestant heresies.
In Catholic tradition, it is clearly affirmed that:
- God wills all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).
- Predestination exists, but it is always in view of Christ’s merit and does not eliminate human freedom.
- The mystery of evil and sin cannot be directly attributed to God, for He is infinitely good and does not will sin.
Therefore, many Catholic theologians have adopted positions closer to sublapsarianism, recognizing that God permits the fall but does not cause it; and that His predestination is a merciful response to a world wounded by sin, not an arbitrary condemnation.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, although he does not use these terms, has a balanced view: for him, God moves all things with sovereignty, but does not annul human freedom or moral responsibility.
V. Spiritual Implications: What Does This Mean for My Life?
This may seem like a question for specialists. But it’s not. What we believe about God and His relationship to sin deeply affects the way we live our faith.
1. God is not a cosmic executioner
If one imagines that God has condemned some from eternity without further cause, a spirituality of fear, fatalism, or even resentment toward God may arise.
Sublapsarianism—and more deeply, Catholic theology—reminds us that God is just, but also merciful. He does not delight in the damnation of the sinner. As Ezekiel says:
“Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23)
2. Sin is real, but it does not have the final word
The fact that God decreed salvation after permitting the fall shows us that evil does not surprise God. He knows how to bring good out of evil. Sublapsarianism places emphasis on redemption as a merciful response to human sin, not as a divine whim.
This invites us to live with confidence: there is no fall so deep that God cannot lift us from it.
3. Grace does not eliminate freedom—it perfects it
God chooses, yes. But He also waits for our free response. Predestination, properly understood, is not determinism, but a guarantee that grace precedes, sustains, and crowns our entire Christian life.
That is why St. Paul exhorts us:
“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.” (Philippians 2:12–13)
Salvation is not a closed script, but a journey of cooperation between God and the soul.
VI. A Call to Theological Humility
Debates such as that of sublapsarianism also teach us a great lesson: humility. The human mind can reason much, but the mystery of God is greater than our categories.
What matters most is not resolving every dilemma, but trusting that God is love, as He revealed to us in Jesus Christ. As St. Paul says:
“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and His paths beyond tracing out!” (Romans 11:33)
Conclusion: Rediscovering the Face of the God Who Saves
Sublapsarianism, more than a theological label, is an invitation to think with depth and faith about the mystery of salvation. It reminds us that God is not indifferent to our suffering, that sin is not part of the original plan, but redemption is.
This ancient debate urges us to live with more hope, to trust more in divine mercy, and to cooperate with His grace in our own story of salvation. We are not predestined to failure—we are called to holiness.
May this knowledge not remain theoretical, but inspire your prayer, your inner struggle, and your way of seeing others. Because in Christ, all who have fallen can be lifted. And because, beyond any theological formula, the heart of God is greater than our reasoning.
“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
(Mark 2:17)
