Talk:Logical order of God's decrees

Luther a Calvinist

"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)

Theologically Luther was not a Calvinist, their views of the eucharist are incompatible, same goes for Zwingli. Might I remind you that this is not trivial, after a theory of justification, the eucharist is the most important point of doctrinal dispute in western christendom. Two things can happen a) Change 'Calvisnist' to 'Protestant' and then they can all stay in b) Edit all non-Calvinists out of the list.

I'm now going to do (a) 90.200.32.88 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If I were satan, I would inject these very curiosities so as to redirect mans focus from having a relationship with God, to comparing explanations on a topic that has no resolution (in the here and now) and whos main purpose is to divide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinbad68101 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And if You weren't? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Calvin and Luther's view on the Eucharist are identical TheReactionaryCalvinist (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Supralapsarianism is Consistent with Omnipotence

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)

Supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, amyraldism and arminianism all agree that the fall was permitted by God, but it is logical order of God's eternal decrees that is in question, not the timing (i.e. both supras and infras agree that the elect were not chosen after Adam sinned, but that God made His choice before the foundation of the world). God's Omnipotence is His all powerful ability to act according to His own perfect will and therefore cannot be applied solely to the supra position. Supralapsarianism has God, while viewing man as unfallen, electing some to eternal life and rejected all others. According to this view the non-elect (or reprobate) were first ordained to destruction, then the means by which they fell was ordained. This makes their damnation an act of divine sovereignty with divine justice as a secondary cause. --How Sweet the Sound (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger from Calvinist terminology

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 [1], and it probably duplicates what is written here. Ideas? Blarneytherinosaur talk 01:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge here. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Accuracy Warning

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)

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)

Supralapsarianism very rare according to Boettner

Boettner states that less than 1 in 100 Calvinists are infra. --Whiteknox 14:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Move to Lapsarianism

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)

Done. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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 [[2]]. 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)

Supralapsarianism and equal ultimacy

We have the start of a minor edit war between myself and User:206.74.228.155. The current revision reads:

Supralapsarianism (also antelapsarianism) is the view that God's decrees of election and reprobation logically preceded the decree of the fall (that is, reprobation is a "positive decree," in that God predestined the fall to occur for the purpose of damning His chosen reprobate), and infralapsarianism (with a minor variant, sublapsarianism) that God's decrees of election and reprobation logically proceeded the decree of the fall (that is, reprobation is a "negative decree," in that reprobation is merely God's refusal to redeem the non-elect).

To my mind, this confuses supralapsarianism and equal ultimacy, but since my edit was reverted back, we need to discuss it here. And even if the connection between the two can be made, it shouldn't be in the introduction. StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with StAnselm. It should be in the introduction since this dispute is over the essential definitions of infra- and supralapsarianism. In my opinion, this article should be tagged over its factual accuracy until we can find a solid definition from a reliable source.

The supralapsarianism of hyper- and neo-Calvinism, I know, rearranges the logical order of the decrees (since God's decree is eternal, there is no temporal order). As I understand it, the doctrine of equal ultimacy is a product of the supralapsarian view. i.e., Since God decreed the fall of man logically after the decree of reprobation, He must actively (positively, not passively or negatively) work to keep the reprobate out of the Church. The doctrine of double predestination means different things to different Reformed theologians, but I believe most who claim adherency don't actually view reprobation as predestined election to death, but rather ordained "lack" of election to life, which is only a coherent description under infralapsarianism.

I also beieve the "sublapsarianism" variant of infralapsarianism advocated by the Amyraldians should be covered in this article, but I'm not as familiar with four-point Calvinism. -- Wesley

Sublapsarianism actually was just another name for infralapsarianism, not amyraldism. It seems that AH Strong was the first to incorectly attribute the name sublapsarianism for amyraldism in his Systematic Theology. Thiessen also mislabeled this view sublapsarianism in his Lectures in Systematic Theology but in later editions completely rewrote this section. It would be good to contrast lapsarianism with arminianism also in the introduction and the table contrasting the views, and maybe a mention of Robert Reymond's modified supralapsarianism.

Arminianism should probably not be labled four-point Calvinists as most four-pointers can not explain how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional! At least Moise Amyraut was commited to the doctrine of divine sovereignty. --How Sweet the Sound (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly! Arminianism is by no means Calvinism, as it opposes the five points of Calvinism. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Equal ultimacy is the proper lable for the view that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect, also known as supralapsarianism (see R.C. Sproul's Chosen by God, p.142). The doctrine of double predestination has had different meanings attached to it ranging from the view that the eternal destiny of elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God to the view that He is actively keeping the reprobate out of heaven while getting the elect in, and therefore is not terribly useful in this discussion.

A separate cell in the table showing the "call to salvation" could be added also. --How Sweet the Sound (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Luther, Zwingli not Supralapsarian

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)

Too schematic statement!

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)

Dr. Gill's Discussion

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)

Page title was ungrammatical

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)

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)

Paedolapsarianism

User:TypistMonkey This is a term that only appears on one blog site, this blogger has three followers, no reliable sources exist. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked into the Martin293 source on Medium and you're right, it's extremely unreliable.

Of the search engines I entered 'paedolapsarianism' into (Google, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, Bing, Dogpile, Ecosia, Google Scholar, Wikipedia Library), I found nothing but mirror sites of Wikipedia, Martin293, and unrelated pages which don't actually use the term. The first use of the term on the internet appears to be Sophie99999's on June 17, 2022. The consequential citation of the Martin293 site happened on July 26, 2022.

Initially, I thought that Martin293's citation of 'Athenorian, Bishop of Orihet', was reputable; I looked into it, and I can't find an 'Athenorian', a Bishop of Orihet, or the theoretical origin of the quote cited. The other pages by Martin293, on 'Polysephus', 'Jim Miller', and milk baptism, are similarly unreputable: Polysephus was theoretically a Credolapsarian who opposed Paedolapsarianism, but he doesn't seem to exist; Jim Miller theoretically wrote a prolific article on milk baptism, but neither him nor the article are findable; the milk baptism page was created on the same day as the Jim Miller one, I think to support it.

I left a message on Sophie99999's talk page inquiring as to where Sophie first encountered the term. Sophie took a hiatus from editing Wikipedia from 2013 to 2022, editing only this page, but this is not intrinsically suspicious. Previous edits of Sophie's seem sincere and accurate.

The discussion over who the object of baptism should be does have the term 'paedobaptism', which seems to be what paedolapsarianism refers to. It's possible that Sophie misremembered this term.

TypistMonkey (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I have seen the origin of the term "Paedolapsarianism"; it comes from a semi-popular Reformed discord server, I was a part of it, it is basically an inside joke they tried to put to wiki. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It might be helpful to quote an user from the discord server, "Sir Fett: my wife just came to my office and said "are you using my wikipedia account? I got an email from someone who wants to learn more about something called "paedolapsarianism"" --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

What's the name of the server, and do you know Sophie99999 or Martin293's connection to it?

Also, apologies, the meaning of the user's quotation is unclear to me.

TypistMonkey (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote seems to imply a member used another persons account for the edits, the server name is Christian Theology and Debate ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you ask the user if they or their wife is Sophie99999 specifically? TypistMonkey (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I have been recently banned from the server, I got the quote using an alternative account. ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There was an user who used the name Bobba/Bubba (forgot exactly) in the server, I suspect the recent edits came from him. 20:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC) --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge as these are sufficiently distinct topics. Klbrain (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

Oppose. These are distinct subjects. Dirkwillems (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.