Reformed Theology Discussion

[Canuckster1127]

No argument from me on that count at all G-Man. I'm doing this somewhat reluctantly. I've really moved away from the whole framework that creates the questions and battles between Arminians and Calvinists. I think they're in places answering questions that the Bible itself doesn't answer but attempting to appropriate to their systematic system the authority of scripture by virtue of the fact that they can proof-text some of their premises (whether in context or not.) But, if I'm going to do this, then I have to set that aside and try as best I can to answer questions and define things fairly and from the position of those who hold to these positions.

[Canuckster1127]

Well, High Calvinism has to do with one's view of when and whom God has predestined. High Calvinism aligns with a position of supralapsarianiam, meaning that they view the fall as God's deliberate design and plan ultimately resulting in those whom God individually predestined for salvation and those whom He predestined for eternal torment. Low Calvinism generally aligns with infralapsarianism meaning that while God absolutely knew that the fall would take place, He did not plan it with a view to which individuals he had specifically planned for salvation or perdition. His predestined plan relates to the higher level of groups rather than down to the detail of individuals. In general, these two views vied with each other during the Synod of Dort. It's a division within Calvinism itself. Neo-Calvinism takes a High Calvinistic position in general.

Here is a link on all supralapsarianiam, infralapsarianism, this article appears to sum these up pretty good in a manner easy to understand.

Link: supralapsarianiam, infralapsarianism

Look forward from hearing more from Bart
-
-
-

Good Link. Thanks B.W.

[Gman]

No argument from me on that count at all G-Man. I'm doing this somewhat reluctantly. I've really moved away from the whole framework that creates the questions and battles between Arminians and Calvinists. I think they're in places answering questions that the Bible itself doesn't answer but attempting to appropriate to their systematic system the authority of scripture by virtue of the fact that they can proof-text some of their premises (whether in context or not.) But, if I'm going to do this, then I have to set that aside and try as best I can to answer questions and define things fairly and from the position of those who hold to these positions.

It is an interesting topic Bart. I hope you know I'm not trying to derail it.. I seem to remember this discussion taking place taking place a longer time ago under another topic. Oh yes.. The Arminian one.

Anyways, please carry on...

[Canuckster1127]

Not at all G-Man. I want this to be a discussion, not a monologue. I just want to elevate it from the usual back and forth with a view to who "wins" and instead better foster understanding as to what the issues are and why they're important.

[Canuckster1127]

So, hopefully this has at least shown that Reformed theology is not monolithic, meaning that there's a fair amount of diversity of tradition and doctrine. Calvinism, historically has fallen within the Reformed community, but Calvinism itself, is more narrowly defined. There are some elements of what is described as "Calvinism" that you'll have a hard time finding too, within Calvin's own writings. I hinted at this before, but the "L" of the TULIP, limited atonement is not strongly present or clearly defined coming directly from Calvin. Some take that Calvin's initial premises and systematic theology was extended further in some areas, than he himself would have embraced. Even recognizing this, there's some strong common themes within Calvinism.

Chief among these is the theme of God's Sovereignty. Lorainne Boettner, a leading Calvinist theologian who is very well and broadly respected in Calvinist circles, lays out that Calvinism begins with a vision of God that is drawn from the Scripture and is tightly compatable with Philosophical Theism. Bottner says,

"The very essence of consistent Theism is that God would have an exact plan for the world, would foreknow the actions of all the creatures he proposed to create and through His all-inclusive providence would control the whole system." (Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 23)

Boettner goes further and says

[God] very obviously predetermined every event which would happen" so that "Even the sinful acts of men are included in this plan" (ibid 24)

Calvinism more specifically than just reformed theology, affirms a strong view of God's sovereignty. Calvin himself in the Institutes says,

"We ought undoubtedly to hold that whatever changes are discerned in the world are produced from the secret stirring of God's hand ... what God has determined must necessarily so take place." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Library of Christian Classics, 20-21)

This is often referred to as devine determinism. Determinism is a term that is shared within both Calvinistic (and some others) theology and is also a Greek Philosphical term. It should be remembered that Calvin, who was indisputably a brilliant man, was a student of Law and Philosophy before he turned to religion and produced, very early in his life, his Institutes. He first published the Institutes when he was 26. There were 5 revisions through his lifetime and he continually expanded them to where the 5th revision was 5 times longer than the first. Calvin's institutes was a seminal work in theology and is still foundational for many. It also represents the first comprehensive Systematic Theology. By that, I mean that this was the first major attempt in Christian History to systematically go through the Bible and organize all of the themes to where the intent was to in a comprehensive manner determine what the Scriptures say collectively on any one theme and then attempt to present doctrinal positions from that exercise. In this manner, Calvin's approach was very consistent with his Legal and Philosophical training foundations before he approached this task. What he taught and based his subsequent work, reasoning and logic on is called Hard Theological Determinism. That means there ultimately are not secondary agents at work making independent choices or taking independent actions that God is taking into account. God is the primary and sole author of all that was, all that is and all that will be and nothing happens that is not a direct result of God's willing it to happen exactly as it has.

It's important to note that this Divine Determinism is not simply stating that God Foreknew all that would happen and has in His Divine providence orchestrated things to where His will, will ultimately come to pass. True Calvinism, holds that God proactively has determined every event that will take place by an active assertion of his infinite power and nothing may deviate from it. There is ultimately nothing that happens in this world or in the life of any person without it having been the declared, direct will of God. Many people who call themselves Calvinists may react to this and seek to tone it down, but if you're going to hold to the tenets as Calvin Himself put them forward that positions is pretty much a non-negotiable.

Calvin's approach, as I mentioned is unquestionably tied to some philosophical themes as well as the methods he developed in logic. This is one primary area where I think Calvinists either are in denial or honestly don't see that this underlying framework, undoubtedly influenced Calvin's system and the results that his approach generated.

Here's a passage from Calvin's own Institutions that gives evidence of what I'm saying,

I, indeed, agree that the things they [the philosophers] teach [about the soul] are true, not only enjoyable, but also profitable to learn, and skillfully assembled by them. And I do not forbid those who are desirous of learning to study them. Therefore I admit in the first place that there are five senses, which Plato preferred to call organs, by which all objects are presented to common sense, as a sort of receptacle. There follows fantasy, which distinguishes those things which have been apprehended by common sense; then reason, which embraces universal judgment; finally understanding, which in intent and quiet study contemplates what reason discursively ponders. Similarly, to understanding, reason, and fantasy (the three cognitive faculties of the soul) correspond three appetitive faculties: will, whose functions consist in striving after what understanding and reason present; the capacity for anger, which seizes upon what is offered to it by reason and fantasy; the capacity to desire inordinately, which apprehends what is set before it by fantasy and sense. (Institutes, I.XV.6.)

Calvinism has been as successful a system of belief as it is, because once it establishes it's presuppositions or premises upon which it's logic rests, it is for the most part internally valid, meaning that it follows closely the rules of logic and comes out to a consistent end or conclusion. Prove that any of these premises are not true, and effectively the entire system falls apart as their are inter-related and inter-dependent. Calvinism presents itself as a Biblical perspective of what the Bible says and only that, free of any outside influences. I disagree with that. I believe Calvinism certainly is Biblical, in the sense that it utilizes proof texting and drawing from Biblical sources in support of what it says, but I think at the foundation are some concepts and approaches to the Bible that the Bible itself doesn't model. This by the way, is not necessarily a problem to Reformed Calvinists to acknowledge and some that I've come accross do acknowledge this. Reformed theology, by definition is a continual process, of reforming to keep the root concepts of truth relevant and applicable within the changes in understanding and culture that may come along. There were several things taking place in Calvin's time that had a profound and direct effect upon how he thought and constructed his reasoning that were decidedly extra-Biblical. One of these would be the great changes in the world that were taking place in the midst of what we now refer to as the Reformation or Rennaisance. In this time, the classics of Roman and Greek literature were rediscovered and had a profound affect and influence on the world around it. Literacy was on the rise as well as printing presses making Scripture available to the masses to where the Churches were no longer the stewards or proprieters of the texts themselves as well as the interpretations. Politically at the time, countries in Europe were in the process of rebelling against Papal Authority and in order to fill that vacuum there had to be a replacement and for many the appeal was to Scripture itself (Sola Scriptura was a cry during this time.) Calvin looking at things from a narrow and structured view as he was trained to in his earlier training also reacted to what he believed was a great deal of allegorizing and over-spiritualizing Biblical texts and he established a much more literal approach that in effect takes what the Bible has to say at face value. I'm not saying that is bad by any means. I do however, take issue from time to time with many of the "proof-texts" that are pulled to support certain concepts that they can at times wrest passages from their form and context and make statements that when you read the entire passage it was originally couched within, you wouldn't come to the conclusion that the statement being drawn out in support of the doctrine cited was making that statement as a focused point.

So anyway, there's some additional foundation. What I'm going to do next is work through the TULIP and present what the points are and how they are generally understood and presented by Calvinists. Again, I'll try to use Calvinist sources and be fair and true to what I think a Calvinist would say. Any who want to correct me in that, feel free, just also keep in mind that there isn't complete agreement between all Calvinists on some of these issues and I'm honestly seeking to be generous in showing these in a positive light, even where I may disagree with something in whole or part.

[DannyM]

Bart, I‘m slightly confused about the purpose of the thread. Going by the link provided on page 1, you might be attempting to show that Reformed theology is about much more than TULIP. If this is what you want to say, or one of the things you want to say, then you’ll get no objection here, and I haven’t seen one Calvinist dwell on the ‘TULIP’, let alone labour the ’TULIP’ to the extent that Reformed theology is neglected or, worse still, forgotten.

Apart from stressing the richness of Reformed theology, which I wholeheartedly agree with, the link, for me, was of no help at all, the low point being the author's strange complaint about "The New Calvinists'" God-centred theology. I must say it is quite a surreal experience to witness a Christian complain about other Christians having a God-centred theology. Unfortunately the author's piece is rather small and he doesn't give us a good reason why a God-centred theology is bad, wrong, or whatever. A few vague examples of "The New Calvinists" aside, one is left wondering what the purpose of the piece is.

Other than that, I see you have outlined ‘3 points’ you want to argue:

1. Calvinism is not the only, and not the best way to understand and interpret Scripture. It is a possible way of looking at things, but it tends to isolate texts and construct arguments that are not always consistent with the whole counsel of Scripture.

2. Calvinism stands apart from several deeply rooted tenets of Historical Christianity.

3. Calvinism falls into contradictions that cannot be internally reconciled. There is room for mystery in all forms of Christian faith. Calvinism, however, tends to take things as logically far as they can be taken and then appeals to mystery when things cannot be reconciled. Chief among these is the necessary concept that God is the author of sin and evil. Many Calvinists deny that their belief system necessitates this conclusion. It is however, a necessary consequence and conclusion of the the whole of the belief system, I believe this in spite those who deny it. Sheer contradiction of this nature is a clear sign of error in my opinion. Contradiction of this degree is not "mystery."

I’ve read through the thread, brother, and as far as I can tell you haven’t substantiated any of these claims yet. So I look forward to seeing you make an argument for each point.

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks Danny. Maybe it will help if I make a few things clear as to what I'm doing here and what I'm not doing.

I'm doing a fair amount of work here organizing and putting together my thoughts to lay the foundation from which I'm presenting my thoughts. As I said early in the thread, I don't believe I have the right to speak to these issues until first I can demonstrate that I understand what I'm talking about. It encourages me to hear you say that you find some things to agree with in terms of what I'm saying. I'll build on that. You might take a look at one of the last posts I did tying Calvinism to Greek Philosophy and Determinism. How do you respond and incorporate that into the common claim of Calvinism that it is solely Biblically based and draws it's very methodology out of Scripture? Do you find, for example in the New Testament, a systematic and exhaustive handling of a particular topic where multiple verses are proof-texted to logical syllogisms to infer things that aren't clearly stated in any one portion of Scripture? How is the method employed in Calvinism and His Instsitutes for example, somehow more Biblical and indisputable than the prior 1500 years?

Those might be some things to think about.

What I'm not doing, is continuing or joining into apparent debates on the other threads where it appears that several people are more concerned about scoring points and winning arguments than helping one another understand truth. Frankly, and don't take this personally, while Christians from any branch can be susceptible to being argumentative and coming to discussions with an agenda to brow-beat their listeners, it's been my observation that it's more common coming from Calvinists. I think part of the reason for that is, as I've stated earlier, that Calvinism is rooted in the methodology of Law and Greek Philosophy. That type of approach, by its nature and design leans toward establishing things in absolute or "all or nothing" terms and there's little room to discuss other options.

Let me make it clear. My goal here is not necessarily to convince you or anyone else to change their minds on some things, although I certainly won't be disappointed if that happens or at least some people maybe temper their claims and approaches to things. My measure in this conversation, Danny, or anyone else who wants to present the contrary is not to continue with the types of discussions that have been taking place. We have enough of those. My goal here is to present to my satisfaction why I believe the way I do and why I reject elements of Calvinism and Reformed theology. I'm not interested in argumentative back and forth exchanges where every statement made is challenged simply for the sake of contrarianism or somehow undermining the credibility of the opponent. That's frankly sophomoric and immature in my opinion and I've certainly been guilty of that in my past, but I frankly just don't wish to operate in that manner any longer and I will not allow others to force me into it.

When I've done presenting my case to my own personal satisfaction, I'll be open to interacting and discussing things with any who want but for the most part I will be done and people will be free to take it or leave it. I will not measure my success by something I can't control. I can't control what you or anyone else thinks and agrees with or doesn't agree with. You and others have asked me to give an answer for my statements and beliefs and I'm doing so, and I'm probably doing so in a deeper and more thorough manner than most others participating in the discussion.

So in that spirit, let me ask you:

Based on what I've said above, do you consider your view High Calvinist or Low Calvinist?

Do you believe in double predestination in the sense that God individually determines of his own private council who will go to heaven and who will go to hell and did so prior to the beginning of the world?

Do you believe, He didn't just foreknow who would make what decision and than lay his plans and courses for this world based on that foreknowledge, but that he made that determination individually for every person with no correlation to any choices that person may or may not make in the future?

What is it about the Bible, particularly the Old Testament which was written by Hebrews with an eastern world view, that suggests that a Greek Philosophical approach to it's interpretation would be suggested by the Scriptures themselves and somehow more Biblical than say, the interpretative methods applied by earlier Christians closer to the time and culture of the scriptures themselves?

I think those are fair questions to ask based on some of what I've done here to start with and also where I'm going.

We may not come to a meeting of the minds, but I hope at least you will know that my opinions are informed and based upon an honest examination of the facts and sources that comprise Calvinism. If I can do that, I'm content to leave any thing further between you and God.

[August]

Bart, we have been over this ground a little in the past, and I think that it is a misrepresentation of Calvinism to associate it with determinism in the same way and sense that the Greek philosophers meant it. It may be the same word, but it does not adequately or accurately describe reformed theology. Now you may want to draw that conclusion based on what the WCF states about the decrees of God, but that would be a strained association in my opinion.

No need for you to expound or discuss, I just wanted to insert my bit and not hijack your discussion.

[DannyM]

Thanks Bart. I’m happy reading the thread, and have mostly enjoyed reading your perspective. The only thing I’m concerned with is those 3 points from page 1 being shown and not just asserted. I’m not suggesting they won’t be treated, and I’m not trying to rush you.

As for your questions, I’ll be happy to answer those, brother. But first and foremost I want to see those claims substantiated. Until you do that, there is nothing for me to concern myself with. And unless you do that, then this thread is nothing more than a platform for your own personal musings on Reformed Theology and Calvinism. That's fine, brother, and I’ll continue to enjoy your perspective. But in my view, until those claims are substantiated, nothing has been shown.

[Canuckster1127]

Fair enough August. There is by necessity some qualifying differences between materialist determinism and divine determinism. The tie between Calvin's legal background and the citation from his Institutes which demonstrate him clearly at times drawing from Greek Philosophy indicates a tie. Can you think of an expression of Christianity that has more in common with Greek Philosophical Determinism? Do you think that Calvin's background in that regard and his emphasis within his Institutes was coincidence?

[August]

Fair enough August. There is by necessity some qualifying differences between materialist determinism and divine determinism. The tie between Calvin's legal background and the citation from his Institutes which demonstrate him clearly at times drawing from Greek Philosophy indicates a tie. Can you think of an expression of Christianity that has more in common with Greek Philosophical Determinism? Do you think that Calvin's background in that regard and his emphasis within his Institutes was coincidence?

Not coincidence, but Calvin was most assuredly not the first or last one to consider it either. Most of the early church fathers that Luther and Calvin, and most theologians at the time and up to that period studied, had considered Greek philosophy both critically and favorably at times. For example, Clement of Alexandria (born in 157 AD) already developed a Christian version of Platoism, as well as integrating some other Greek philosophies. Anselm, Aquinas and onwards were also clearly looking at it, and accepted some of the tenets and rejecting others. Luther was an Augustinian monk, remember, and Augustine had also studied, and in fact laid groundwork for predestination as a doctrine, no doubt influenced by those that he had studied. Given that Rome at the time pretty much ruled over most of Europe, it was unavoidable that what was at the time considered to be the most advanced thinking, that of the Greek intelligencia, would be incorporated in some forms.

Determinism in Greek thought really started in opposition to the school of thought that gods were the cause of everything, so it assumes the opposite of what the theologians did.

Calvin's first undergrad was in Stoic philosophy, and while he may have had some undertones like that, and similarities in language, he was specifically very critical, even derisive, of it in many places, probably more so than importing the core elements of the philosophy or viewing it as a major presupposition.

I don't think that any Christian school of thought really reflects determinism in the Greek fatalist sense. All of them acknowledge the sovereignty of God, as well as the fact that God is not an impersonal fatalistic force, as determinism holds. Some may separate issues by appealing to secondary causes, but unless one is an open theist, God as the primary cause is pretty much universal.

I agree though that it is hard to find any unbiased information about it, as there seems to be a lot points to be scored to lump some school of thought in with something such as Greek philosophy. I guess if we wanted to associate philosophical schools of thought with theologies then one could equally assign the libertarianism of Alexander, commenting on Aristotle, to Arminius. But that would not be fair either.

[B. W.]

I just want to interject something here. It is important to understand the times and educational influences on someone like Mr Calvin or even Mr Wesley as they both had considerable influence over many reaching 100 of years after their passing. This is what Bart is trying to do, establish a historical background – a profile of the person in their respective time. In Social work Case Management, and also in the Criminal Justice system , you put facts together to learn about a person and what influences influence them. Very basic stuff and there is nothing nefarious about this.

I suggest that before readers begin jumping all over Bart presupposing he has nefarious intent in looking at what historical influences were in the days of Mr Calvin and on him, please rest. This is basic thorough investigative work. It is well worth doing. We are all affected by the age /time period/ education/etc of our own environments and appointed time on earth. By looking at the historical record we can better understand what Mr Calvin meant. That’s all.
-
-
-

[domokunrox]

Bart, you have an amazing wealth of information. I am so glad and appreciative of your input here on this matter.

Do you mind if I cite any of your resources for my own use? I would be glad to sum this all up and make it available to everyone here in PDF format for the benefit of all of us when you finish it.

My only comment so far is that I don't accept the presumptions and methods of the greek philosophers. They had uncovered a great wealth of truth with their methods, but they were also clearly wrong on very critical things.

Infinity as defined by the philosophers has been philosophically and mathematically proven false.

I subscribe to a complete analytic philosophy method. I guess that's why I don't agree with them.
I might chime in on that if the discussion goes that direction.

[DannyM]

Bart, you have an amazing wealth of information. I am so glad and appreciative of your input here on this matter.

Do you mind if I cite any of your resources for my own use? I would be glad to sum this all up and make it available to everyone here in PDF format for the benefit of all of us when you finish it.

Bart is very knowledgeable and experienced in these areas, that is for sure. And I myself have learned much from the man in the past. But wouldn’t you like to do your own, more thorough research into things you are interested in? For example, wouldn’t you like to read Calvin’s Institutes for yourself, rather than quote someone else’s opinion of Calvin’s Institutes? Or is it the presuppositions that come with the author that so attracts you?

[Canuckster1127]

Bart, you have an amazing wealth of information. I am so glad and appreciative of your input here on this matter.

Do you mind if I cite any of your resources for my own use? I would be glad to sum this all up and make it available to everyone here in PDF format for the benefit of all of us when you finish it.

My only comment so far is that I don't accept the presumptions and methods of the greek philosophers. They had uncovered a great wealth of truth with their methods, but they were also clearly wrong on very critical things.

Infinity as defined by the philosophers has been philosophically and mathematically proven false.

I subscribe to a complete analytic philosophy method. I guess that's why I don't agree with them.
I might chime in on that if the discussion goes that direction.

Dom, You or anyone else is welcome to use this material as you wish. Philosophy is a sidebar with me. I've done some reading in different areas. Most of my historical context comes from having read Will and Ariel Durant's Story of Civilization which is an 11 volume set. It puts together a comprehensive analysis of the history, culture, art and architecture, economics and philosphy of the time and geographical regions being examined and by that tries to help the reader understand how each of these elements combines with others to explain how things interact. I'm probably something of an odd duck for having done that, but that's me. I read and I write and I try to form a view of things that doesn't just accept someone else's interpretation of things.

Something that's important to understand too, and B.W. is right, that it what I'm trying to do here, but there is no such thing as purely "Biblical" theology in the sense that someone just reads the Bible and free from any other influences understands all that it is saying based on the Bible alone. Now, I certainly believe that one can develop a Biblical theology that is more Biblically based than others. But, everyone brings with them their own set of influences. That was as true for Calvin as it is for us. Reformed theology in part is really based upon this recognition. Many reformed congregations have a motto, "Reformed and always Reforming." That means, at least in theory, Reformed Theology recognizes that as things like culture, technology, philosophy, economics etc. change that we should be continially adapting and adjusting our theological understanding, not to in anyway change their Biblical foundation but to keep that truth relevant and applicable to our own times and situations. It's one of the reasons why I note that when you take Reformed Theology and then begin to apply it outside of it Reformed Community context then you lose something that is part of the mix to keep balance. Reformed theology is community based, confessional and is not intended to remain static. In fact, while there's value and importance in reformed theology in looking back to historical creeds and confessions, it's a little ironic when those confessions, as they can tend to in some cases, almost become the equivilent of Scripture. The PCA church I was in (and I'm not picking on them but just calling from my experience) was as likely to refer to the Westminster Confession as to Scripture to support a point. I think it was referred to from the Pulpit, almost as much as anything scripture and in addition to Scripture readings on Sunday Mornings there were responsive readings from it which were treated in much the same manner of Scripture. These confessions are important historically and truth doesn't change so I understand why much of it would be useful still today, but the point of them was for each group in each time and place to wrestle with these issues and in the context of their own times and other factors come out with their own confession, not just appeal to other's from the past.

When you take the TULIP out of that context and make it the focus then there's a lot of dynamics that change and the results are decidedly different than how it's been seen and used in the past. That's why I put the emphasis I am here on Neo-Calvinism because I believe that's exactly what it's doing and it's, to my observation, what is the most prevelant in terms of people I interact with in different contexts online.

Anyway, for what it's worth those are my thoughts.