Talk:Lapsarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism Portal Lapsarianism falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article is supported by the Theology work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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