Talk:Ordo salutis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Lutheranism / Calvinism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism (marked as Mid-importance).
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Ordo salutis:
  • Consider New Layout (Differing views on order within same camps)
  • Criticism section needs expansion
  • Support section needs expansion
  • The exact "order" for each group of theology needs to be confirmed
  • The Catholic Order of Salvation references Demarist's book, but the Catholic list is nothing like what's found in Demarist.
Priority 1 (top)

Article assessment[edit]

Very informative article. I'm rating it a C class article for content and clarity, though, there needs to be serious thought about reoganization. For example, the sequential list in the introduction needs to be stylistcially altered. Though the stylistic problems don't take too much away from how informative the article is. Ltwin (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Ok after a copy edit of the article, I'm reassessing it to B class. Ltwin (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Most Common Order[edit]

This just seems to be a HUGE WP:OR issue. I'm tagging it with a CN, and if a source is not provided in 7 days, it has to go. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Variants within Catholicism[edit]

This is a very good article, and I like the ease of comparison and the availability of many links. I do want to point out that the core disagreement between Calvin and Arminius was also a major point of disagreement between Luis de Molina and Domingo Banez, in specific ways so incredibly similar that I would describe Molinism as Arminianism plus the via media, and Banez-specific Thomism as Calvinism minus perseverance of the saints. To that end, perhaps there should be two Catholic lists with a bit of expansion for both of them. Banez and Molina each initiated an inquisition on the other, and most of the Jesuit Order was nearly expelled from the Catholic Church as a result of the controversy. In the end, no one was thrown out and the differences continued to be there, but people in positions of leadership weren't permitted to argue with each other anymore or try and have people expelled.

With that being said, the vast majority of lay Catholics are completely unaware of the controversy and none of the various opinions have any specific sway over their personal beliefs. Although for what it's worth, Jesuits sympathetic to Molina were primarily in charge of the modern Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia (online version is New Advent) leans extremely hard in a Molina-apologist direction when it comes to relevant content. On the other hand, most of the more prominent Protestant converts to Catholicism (at least those who are immediately featured in debates and on talk radio) tend to come from a Calvinist-supporting background and they try to help each other, and the Protestants they hope to convert, come to a familiarity with Thomism since it has so much in common with their current beliefs.

There are some other Catholic frameworks when it comes to this, but those are the two big ones. Perhaps there ought to be one main distinction between different types of Catholic ideas on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.99.17 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

New content: Traditionalist column and criticism of Calvinism[edit]

Someone anonymously added a “traditionalist” column without citing any source(s) for it. Is this original research? I’m unaware of any denomination or Christian tradition known as “traditionalism”. Calling it that seems to imply that it’s the “right” view as opposed to all the denominational views, which throws off the neutral point of view in the article. The new section about opposition to Calvinism also seems to buck the neutral point of view and cites a bunch of Scripture instead of secondary sources, which seems to make it original research or at least makes this article into a secondary source rather than a tertiary one. I recommend we either add a citation to the “traditionalist” column or remove it, and that we remove the Bible verses from the criticism of Calvinism section (I don’t mind keeping the paragraph about Kevin Thompson and Leighton Flowers. If readers wish to know what biblical support Thompson and Flowers use they can consult the secondary sources. — Joey Day (talk·contribs) 17:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)