It is also interesting to note a few leaders of reformation synods (Dort: Franciscus Gomarus & Wesminster Assembly: William Twisse) are supralapsarianists despite the fact that the majority bodies of the councils are infralapsarianists.
In a layman's view, supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism could just be the logical understanding of "The Fall illustrates election of God" and "Election of God illustrates the Fall", respectively. So there are those who see no need to touch on such connection of the two terms: election and the fall, and there are those who see no reason to distinguish the two statements. A denial of "Election of God illustrates the Fall" by the infralapsarianists would create a void as to why would God "plan" the Fall in the first place and risk saying God as the author of the fall.
I would say if I really have to take a view, I would take many sides since the terminologies are here and there. However, I would appear leaning towards supralapsarianism. Amyraldianism's rejection of limited atonement is just a confusion of its terminology, to my believe. Because limited atonement is the title of "sufficient for all, efficient for the elects".
The main offense an infralapsarianist would take against supralapsarianists is on the matter if God's the source of evil (while this accusation could also be used against the infra-: That God is the author of sin), and the definition of good grace. I can only say, while some are, not all supralapsarianists are to be accused of those. God is not the source of evil. But that doesn't mean we should be sympathetic to the arminians, which is how I sometimes see infralapsarianists are doing. If God elects some, that means God reprobates the rest, it is not necessary to say God merely "pass over" the rest and obscure the reprobate terminology.
So to me,
God sets aside elects and reprobates as light and darkness. Elects are from sinners. As light departs darkness.
The salvation is sufficient for all, but efficient for the elects only. So, God is not to be blamed for a sinner's damnation.
It is not seen, a freedom, for light and darkness, but in man, we see such mysterious element called freedom.
Therefore, we know that God is not only sovereign over day and night (but not responsible for any evil of any - viz. darkness), but He is sovereign over this mysterious element called freedom (and not responsible for any evil), which is but His creation, also.
I believe contention of this sort is due to the temptation we sometimes suffer to ordain who are the elects and reprobates ourselves in this world. For which the remedy, I think, is hope, it is neither skepticism nor obstinacy, but a genuinely honest hope (Matthew 10:16 - Wise as serpents, harmless as doves).
I shall also add this to Reflection category as I need to further meditate on this.
It has also come to my attention lately that such debate is relevant to another debate: That if Christ's human nature was created/taken upon or uncreated and eternal. I remember Dr. Tong made a good point: That if it is "added" to Christ, then Christ was not complete to begin with. This topic is too broad for my ability right now, it is sufficient to say that if the matter is taken indiscriminately, heresy is very possible. Despite the fact that this debate is usually among orthodox believers.
And for my own note, noted exponents of Supralapsarianism:
1. Franciscus Gomarus
2. William Twisse
3. Abraham Kuyper
4. Arthur Pink
5. Theodore Beza
6. Herman Hoeksema
Resources worth using but with measure: wikipedia and http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm
