This topic was mentioned on another forum on this site. The terms were used in the controversy which arose around Arminius and the Remonstrants. They have to do with Adam's sin and the question 'Did God predetermine that Adam would sin?' or 'Did God specifically permit it?' Or as it was expressed in those days "Was the first sin of man, constituting his fall, included in the Divine Decrees?"Supralapsarians said that Adam was predestinated to sin. It was in the Divine Decrees.Infralapsarians said that Adam's sin was foreknown but not predestinated. It was not in the Divine Decrees.As time passed the views moved closer to each other and become almost indistinguishable. Most Reformed theological statements embody the the Infralapsarian position, but do not condemn Supralapsarianism.Supralapsarians will be relieved to know that while it is not permissable to represent the supralapsarian view as the doctrine of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, it is just as little permissable to molest any one who cherishes that view for himselfSuparlapsarians are hereby assured that they will not be 'molested' if travelling to the Netherlands.I wonder if that has been included in the latest travel advice from our governments? :-P [Most of the above is gleaned from "Systematic Theology" Louis Berkhof.]
