Lapsarianism is not a thing

[Josheb]

Reposted from another thread​

I have been substituting your word "lapsarianism" with a more precise term for two reasons:

1. Lexical clarity: Lapsarianism, as a noun, is a vague and unnecessary neologism. It doesn't name a doctrinal stance, nor does it correspond to any coherent theological position or system. There is no "–ism" about the fall per se. The word functions meaningfully only as an adjective, like "lapsarian views" or "lapsarian controversy." Supralapsarianism names a specific and historically defined position within Reformed theology, whereas lapsarianism doesn't point to any doctrinal position.

Whether a neologism or not, lapsarianism (small "l," speaks of the issue in general, just as "theism" speaks of the matters pertaining to divine entities. Judaism would be a particular theological viewpoint within theism. (Modern) Buddhism would be a non-theistic viewpoint within theism. Polytheism would be another viewpoint within the overarching matter of ~isms pertaining to the nature of God and/or the religious expression thereof. Similarly, if we were discussing different forms of government a variety of posters might assert monarchies, oligarchies, democracy, republics or any of the other governmentisms that fall within the overarching concept of government. We do the same thing with many doctrines within which different viewpoints exist. The suffix ~ism is not always used but we still often discuss specific viewpoints within an overarching concept or doctrine.

The word "lapsarianism" can be Googled. The term is defined as "Lapsarianism, a term derived from the Latin word "lapsus" (fall), refers to different views on the logical order of God's decrees, particularly concerning the fall of humanity, election, and reprobation. It explores how God's decisions regarding humanity's state and destiny relate to each other in His eternal plan" (highlight the AI's). GotQuestions opens its article on the subject with, "These three theological terms, discussed among Calvinist thinkers, deal with God’s predestination of certain individuals to be saved. The term lapsarian is related to the English word lapse; mankind’s fall into sin was a “lapse” in that it was a “slip” or a “falling” from their original state of innocence" (emphasis mine). Supralapsarianism would be one viewpoint, and infralapsarianism would be another viewpoint. Sublapsarianism would be a third viewpoint. All three seek to address the logical order of God's decrees.



That said, I'll stay out of the current dispute with the other poster other than to reiterate my position since I keep getting mentioned. I do not believe God authored the fall and/or created people prior to the fall for the sole purpose of eternal condemnation. Both positions are incorrect. Both positions contradict the whole of scripture and are inconsistent with Augustinian/Calvinist soteriology. I have stated I think the entire matter of lapsarianism is suspect. The debate may be useful as a construct for understanding the possibilities (logically and practically) of creation relevant too salvation but, as GotQuestions puts it, "the answers to the lapsarian issue are best left up to God" (again, emphasis is mine). However, I also find that statement a bit of a cop out, an avoidant response, because the exercise of considering the matter can be worthwhile as long as we do not commit hubris or create divisive doctrine over what ultimately cannot be known. Personally, I believe Jesus was coming into creation whether the fall happened or not. The "fall," therefore is irrelevant to God's decree, both logically and practically.



Carry on.

 

[John Bauer]

Judaism, Buddhism, theism, and polytheism each denote coherent positions, ideologies, or systems. Lapsarianism does not. If that term referred to anything it would be "a system of thought concerning the fall," looking at it etymologically (lapsus + –arius + –ismus). But that is not how it's being used in these discussions, where the subject is actually God's eternal decree. The fall of mankind is the backdrop, not the focus. So, even if it was a real word, it would be the wrong word.

It is telling that the word cannot be found in the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Collins, etc., nor in theological dictionaries, creeds, or confessions—but it can be found in a search overview generated by Google's generative AI technology? I am obviously comfortable with that. (And let it not escape anyone's notice that GotQuestions.org did not use the term anywhere. They used the word lapsarian, but, as my response indicated, that is a perfectly valid adjective. You will never find me replacing that word. Just lapsarianism, which is not a word—and, even if it was, it would be the wrong word.)

Interestingly, in my search results I did find the term being used by dispensationalists and Pelagians (the folks at Soteriology 101). But I am never surprised when opponents of Reformed theology use terms that misrepresent or obscure the issues. I am surprised when Reformed folks do it, though.

 

[Josheb]

They used the word lapsarian, but, as my response indicated, that is a perfectly valid adjective. You will never find me replacing that word. Just lapsarianism, which is not a word—and, even if it was, it would be the wrong word.)

The suffix "-ism" is used in the English language to form nouns that apply to doctrines, systems of thought, states, conditions, theories and practices. Examples of the use of the suffix in theology would include covenantalism, dispensationalism, trinitarianism, dualism, determinism, and theism. The various lapsarian points of view become isms the moment they become systemic or doctrinal and it is perfectly correct and permissible to use the suffix accordingly.

You will never find me....

That's good but be aware of and wary of any argument from silence. I'll bet I also never find you asserting the salvific potency or pink polka dotted, yellow striped unicorns wearing 10mm firework cannons shooting marshmallows. What you, I, or anyone else doesn't do is not germane to the point made in the op (or the discussion of supra- v infra- lapsarianism.

Lexically speaking, the word "lapsarianism," is a perfectly valid word in any thread in which supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism are being discussed and/or debated. The use of the word speaks to the presuppositional nature of both positions in ways that are often avoided by either pole. In point of fact, one way both sides implicitly use the concept (if not the actual word) is to note lapsarianism is concerned with logical order, not chronological order. That is where the various viewpoints share common ground (the matter is not defined irreconcilably or mutually exclusively). That's where the Venn diagrams of the two povs overlap.