Talk:Logical order of God's decrees

message: "Many prominent early Calvinists were supralapsarian, such as Martin Luther," -- since when was Luther a Calvinist??????
:Theologically, Luther is definitely a Calvinist.  He is not a Calvinist in the denominational or paritsan sense of the word in which it describes the later churches which sprang up in Germany and elsewhere devoted to either the teachings of Philip Melanchthon, Luther's disciple, or Calvin and his disciples (like John Knox).  This terminology is common in historical studies, where Scandinavia and Protestant Germany are generally considered Lutheran and the Netherlands, Protestant Switzerland, and Scotland are Calvinist.  This tells us nothing, however, about their actually doctrinal leanings, only (nominal) denominatinoal affiliation. For example, the Church of England under Elizabeth I accepted the doctrinally Calvinist 39 Articles (which were, in fact, heavily influenced by Calvin's writings), while Elizabeth herself was no fan of Calvin and her church was distinctly not denominationally tied to Calvins'.  Srnec 18:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if You weren't? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Calvin and Luther's view on the Eucharist are identical TheReactionaryCalvinist (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Luther a Calvinist

message: If God is omnipotent, no plan of Him should fail. So the Fall of humanity must have been planned by God. Anything out of God's expectation is a sign of His impotence. So supralapsarinism is at least consistent with the idea of omnipotence. Of course, supralapsarinism has its own fatal logical troubles. --Roland 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supralapsarianism is Consistent with Omnipotence

message: Calvinist terminology surveys a couple of Calvinist topics that I believe would be better delt with in their own articles. There are no real links to that article , and it probably duplicates what is written here. Ideas? Blarneytherinosaur talk 01:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge here. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, absolutely. I didn't know the terminology page existed, actually. It doesn't really belong. StAnselm 03:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger from Calvinist terminology

message: I added the Accuracy Flag to the "Theology" section for a couple of reasons.  The first sentnce is just flat wrong.  The whole discussion is convoluted and inaccurate.  And there are no legitimate citations.  Arghhhh!  I don't have time to fix it right now.  Jim Ellis 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert, but I feel uneasy about the accuracy too. Is supralapsarianism really so rare? No evidence is given, and while the post says various famous people are supralapsarian, does it say anybody is infralapsarian?  I wouldn't be surprised if the article had it exactly opposite, and supralapsarians were more common.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.193.201 (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy Warning

message: Boettner states that less than 1 in 100 Calvinists are infra.  --Whiteknox 14:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a gross underestimation. -- Wesley
Boettner's comment was that "there is not more than one Calvinist in a hundred that holds the supralapsarian view," and I agree that it is no doubt an exaggeration.  --How Sweet the Sound (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supralapsarianism very rare according to Boettner 

message: I suggest that this article be moved to Lapsarianism.  Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism both fall under the category of Lapsarianism.  It would be a simpler and more logical title for the article.
Neelix (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard the term "Lapsarianism" used as a term for what is described here. These are two positions which are discussed under the category of the order of the divine decrees (see Theopedia []. I have no problem with a redirect from lapsarianism to here, but the best title to me is Order of the Divine Decrees or Order of God's Decrees (as per Theopedia). JFHutson (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[Lapsarianism]] 

message: Beza and Zanchius were the first to hold a Supralapsarian view. None of the earlier Reformers held it, and certainly not Luther and Zwingli who were not Calvinists anyway. Lamorak (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Luther, Zwingli not Supralapsarian

message: Statement in Theology end of para 2:
:It came into popularity with hyper-Calvinism.
implies that there was a hyper-Calvinist movement, which I doubt has ever occured. Instead I believe there sometimes occurs an anti-common-salvation attitude in connection with the double-predestination discussion that by other theologicians are labeled as "hyper-Calvinism". (I'm not "apologizing" Calvinism, just trying to understand it objectively, however buggy and flawed) ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Too schematic statement!

message: Go to one of the various reproductions of Buck's Theological Dictionary on the Internet and look at page 429, the article on Supralapsarians, to get probably about the clearest discussion of the topic, with John Gill's pro- discussion (from A Body of Divinity).  Best way is to search for Buck's Theological Dictionary on Google, which will get you the whole dictionary scanned, at about the third result.  The article is on page 429.  Don't bother using Bing, as, apparently, Microsoft is suppressing Google results.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.229.129 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Gill's Discussion

message: The title ought to be Logical order of God's decrees, where decrees is plural. I've renamed (moved the page)
Marfinan (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the title from Michael Horton's The Christian Faith, where he uses it (with the singular "decree") as a section heading. I think he's referring to the order of the decree to save the elect in relation to other decrees, so we are really only referring to one decree: "Did this decree to save come before (at least logically) the decree to create and permit the fall?" I'm not opposed to the new title, just providing an explanation. --JFH (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title was ungrammatical 

message: Proposed merge with Ordo Salutis, given that they discuss very similar material. Keeping separate pages would be tantamount to duplicating data. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. These are distinct subjects. Dirkwillems (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose. per Dirkwillems----Telikalive (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge