|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Was John Calvin a Calvinist?
|
Unitarian1986
Shipmate
# 15908
|
Posted
I have heard it said that John Calvin himself would not have subscribed to many of the points of the theology that today bears his name. I would like to know: is this true? If so, which parts of Calvinism are later additions? What did Calvin actually believe/teach?
[ 10. November 2014, 18:49: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
"You have made us for Yourself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee." -St. Augustine
Posts: 63 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Calvin's Institutes are notoriously hard to read, AND he continuously revised them throughout his life, so it's hard to pin him down and say what he would'would not have agreed with.
the infamous "TULIP" configuration of Dort fame is, of course, derived from Calvin, it is the natural progression of his line of thought. However, Calvin never spells it out as specifically as Dort does-- e.g. limited atonement. Given that Calvin is a pretty intelligent guy, surely he would have seen the implications, logical progression. So I'm gonna hypothesize that he didn't connect all the dots on purpose. That when you do so, you end up in a place that is really dark and IMHO unbiblical.
So it is my opinion that not everything you find in Dort would be approved by Calvin (but there is way more to "Calvinism" as it's presented today than that) But that is to a large degree speculative on my part.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
We had a good lecture re Calvin and Calvinism, and that gave us the info that Calvin thought more, wrote more, got more done - much of it differing from what he'd originally thought - and one important one was that he didn't teach/believe that people were automatically sent to hell as he'd thought earlier.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
No.
(reply to OP - just for clarity, even if it does make my response rather verbose.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Before we go too far with divorcing Calvin from Calvinism, I gotta point out that while Calvin may not have advocated Calvinism as it later developed, he certainly advocated the doctrine of predestination.
Really, predestination gets a bad rap these days for little reason. It merely posits that God is sovereign over the process of Salvation. Salvation is founded on God's free act of mercy. Any resulting conclusions from that first premise is tinted with the joy and hope of that that first premise. If any of that sounds terribly controversial, imagine how it would have sounded to a medieval Christian. Earnest seekers like Martin Luther went to confession every hour terrified that they might get hit by a bus or something and die with unconfessed sins on their souls. A corrupt Church actually fostered this behavior if it kept the indulgence money rolling in. Then the Protestants came along saying "Forget all that bric-a-brac. Our God is a God of Mercy, and salvation is in His hands. Rejoice in the grace God has given you." People flocked to Protestantism for reason. For the medieval Christian predestination was a joyful, liberating doctrine.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unitarian1986
Shipmate
# 15908
|
Posted
Zach82, thanks for that inspiring post. I have always had a problem with the doctrine of predestination even though it seems to be backed up by the Bible. However, I have never heard it put quite like that in the context of what the church used to teach and it shed a whole new light on God's grace. Thank you.
--------------------
"You have made us for Yourself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee." -St. Augustine
Posts: 63 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unitarian1986:
I have heard it said that John Calvin himself would not hav subscribed to many of the points of the theology that today bears his name. I would like to know: is this true?
On my reading of the Institutes, no, it's not true.
Calvin starts from the principle that in any controversy, the answer is to be preferred that most glorifies God. It is most glorifying to God to ascribe to him credit for everything that is praiseworthy - and therefore any claim that any creature is responsible for anything good robs God of the glory that is his. God is responsible for all of ‘my' merits. The only reason for me not to be sinning (or not to be sinning worse) is that God is restraining me from it. Left to myself, I should be absolutely wicked - to deny that proposition would be to claim that there is some goodness in me for which God is not wholly to be praised.
From there, it is clear that if I am to be saved, the initiative must come entirely from God, and cannot be a response to anything good in me (there is nothing good) but be an act of unconditional grace. Since I would resist God's salvation if I could (because being evil I must do necessarily resist) he has to restrain me irresistably from rejecting him. And because God fail or cannot act in vain, his grace can only be extended to those whom he in fact saves, and those who are saved cannot fail to be saved.
All of that is in Calvin. The only thing in TULIP that is not in the Institutes is the acronym.
There is, of course, a hell of a lot more to Calvin's theology than TULIP. And there's a fair bit of Calvin's theology that is not uniquely his and can be found in Augustine. If anything, though, I would say that Calvin's thought was more hard-line than many Calvinists today. I have for example, rarely heard a Calvinist expound total deptravity without qualifying it by saying that this does not mean that we are as bad as we can possibly be, but that we are deeply (not superficially) flawed, depraved in our totality, and in need of radical fixing from outside, not self-improvement. Calvin's take (ISTM) is exactly that we are as bad as we can possibly be. The only reason that I am not at present commiting genocide, blasphemy and treason is that God's hand is on me to prevent that - if God let the reins slip, there would be no end to my evil (because to say that there is the slightest virtue or restraint of evil that I am responsible for is to deny the glory of that good thing to God).
Calvin was most definitely a Calvinist.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Zach is correct in asserting that the original intent underlying Calvin's doctrine of the sovereignty of God was good. Unfortunately in some quarters, predestination had less charitable aspects.
Because of its strict dichotomy between the elect and the reproprate, which was settled before time began according to Reformed doctrine, it resulted in a smug arrogance among some Calvinists that they were the true godly elect and thus were both morally and intellectually superior than the damned. Forgetting that Reformed doctrine states that we all remain broken sinners before an infinitely holy God, some Calvinists took their election as an excuse for pride and dogmaticism.
On the flip side, Calvinist doctrine did not erase completely the medieval anxiety over salvation. Some people feared so greatly that they were not part of the elect, that they worked really hard to made sure that they could produce good works as "evidence" of their predestination. Astonishingly, from a tradition that attacked Roman Catholicism for being a religion of works-based salvation, there were some Calvinists who ended up embracing a moderate form of Pelagianism as a result of their embrace of predestination.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I need to check this, with a Calvin Scholar, but my recall is one point Calvin would have rejected outright and one is dubious. The rest he would likely want to nuance but on the whole thinks similarly.
Reformed theology has never been a one theologian tradition. The synod of Dort therefore when it drew up the five points in response to Arminius was not solely drawing on Calvin.
Predestinarianism, Arminianism and Universalism are all branches of Reformed theology. The debate does not exist in these terms outside of the tradition.
What calls itself Calvinism today owe one a portion of its thought to Calvin. If you don't believe me go and look at Calvin on the Sacraments, he really has far more in common with Anglo Catholicism than many would like.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Are you denying then, Eliab, that virtue is a function of God's grace?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Are you denying then, Eliab, that virtue is a function of God's grace?
Not in the least. I'm not asserting or denying anything about my own views, merely setting out my reading of Calvin's Institutes.
Not being a Calvinist of any sort, I disagree with the second premise - that sole responsibility and praise must be given to God for every good thing, and none to any creatures. The reason is that I accept the first premise - that we should give God the most glory possible - and I think it is scarcely flattering to God to say that either he is incapable of making a truly good creature, or that he botched every attempt at it. By way of analogy, I would much prefer to hear you comment that my son or daughter was well-behaved without reference to my parenting skills, than have you congratulate me on how well I manage to restrain their inner wickedness. I have no doubt at all which gives me the most glory - I am more honoured if their virtue is truly theirs, than if it is wholy mine, because it ought to be my whole aim as a father to inspire and nurture true goodness. I would apply the same consideration to my own father in heaven.
It seems to me, though, that if I am wrong about that, then the case for Calvinist theology would be absolutely compelling. The idea that God should be solely acknowledged as responsible for goodness, and no praise or credit bestowed on any creature for it, is foundational. That granted, TULIP necessarily follows.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]
All of that is in Calvin. The only thing in TULIP that is not in the Institutes is the acronym.
While it is true that the foundational principles that TULIP is based on are all drawn from Calvin's Institutes, you will not see all of them spelled out with the specificity you find in TULIP. Limited atonement in particular ("L") is not found in the Institutes, although it is the logical progression of his argument re: the elect and the reprobate. There is a greater restraint in the Institutes than is found in Dort, appropriately so.
I would agree that the central issue for Calvin is glorifying God and proclaiming his sovereignty over all of creation, and that that is the key to understanding his doctrines.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Every Christian I have ever known accepts that God is Love. It follows from this that any knowledge about Love is knowledge about God. At this point, we either believe that God wills that we know Him, or we know God against His will. Since I assume that all Christians accept that God wills that we know him, then they must follow that path to concluding that love is only known because God revealed it to us or allowed it to be revealed, in a process we usually call grace. This seems, I think, to bring us very close to something like Total Depravity, since without God's grace we would have no knowledge of Love whatsoever.
Indeed, you insist that God is capable of creating a good creature, and that is precisely what Calvinism is saying. Good creatures do exist, because God Himself has willed it. Why that has been so controversial, and is always defined in the most vicious terms, is beyond me. It seems to follow from universally accepted premises and agree with universally held conclusions.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Every Christian I have ever known accepts that God is Love. It follows from this that any knowledge about Love is knowledge about God. At this point, we either believe that God wills that we know Him, or we know God against His will. Since I assume that all Christians accept that God wills that we know him, then they must follow that path to concluding that love is only known because God revealed it to us or allowed it to be revealed, in a process we usually call grace. This seems, I think, to bring us very close to something like Total Depravity, since without God's grace we would have no knowledge of Love whatsoever.
Indeed, you insist that God is capable of creating a good creature, and that is precisely what Calvinism is saying. Good creatures do exist, because God Himself has willed it. Why that has been so controversial, and is always defined in the most vicious terms, is beyond me. It seems to follow from universally accepted premises and agree with universally held conclusions.
Zach
I don't think total depravity has ever been all that controversial. Indeed, as Chesterton quipped, it's the only Christian doctrine that can be empirically verified. Limited atonement would be the element of TULIP that is most controversial-- quasi-blasphemous IMHO.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
On the contrary-- total depravity has been denied on this very thread.
As for Limited Atonement, everyone but the universalists believes in hell, and that the damned will not share in God's Kingdom. Does Limited Atonement say anything past that? I honestly don't know. I am more versed in Luther's predestination than Calvin's.
Zach
[ 11. October 2010, 16:48: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I've understood the doctrine of total depravity to be saying something more than that humans are thoroughly bad.
I thought it meant that humans are so utterly bad they can't accurately perceive the offer of grace through Jesus except by an act of God. Hence explaining why God necessarily chooses those who are saved and those who are not.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
As for Limited Atonement, everyone but the universalists believes in hell, and that the damned will not share in God's Kingdom. Does Limited Atonement say anything past that? I honestly don't know. I am more versed in Luther's predestination than Calvin's.
Zach
Limited atonement goes far beyond saying that there are some who will not share in the Kingdom. Limited atonement suggests that Jesus did not die "for the whole world" (as the gospels say) but rather ONLY for "the elect" (hence the "limited").
This is NEVER explicitly found in any of Calvin's writings. It is however, the logical progression, and makes sense when read through that Calvinistic lens of emphasizing God's glory and God's sovereignty. Because God is sovereign, it is impossible for anything God does to be ineffectual. If Jesus dies to save the whole world, but some end up not being saved, then that means Jesus' death was, at least in part, ineffectual. Therefore Jesus could not have died for all, but only for the elect. (Of course, another way to handle that is to go universalism).
It makes perfect, logical sense and conforms to the key propositional truth of Calvinism-- God's sovereignty. But IMHO it does so at the expense of defining God in terms that seem completely out of the character of God as revealed in Scripture. IMHO it makes "logical consistency" the prime driving agenda-- and comes up hopelessly bankrupt in the process.
But again, that's Dort, not Calvin.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
We may not like the conclusions drawn, but we cannot dismiss them purely on the basis of that dislike. Was the cross of Christ ineffectual? For myself, I hardly see how Calvin departs from mainstream Christian teaching. Indeed Christ died for the whole world, but the elect share in God's Kingdom, and the damned don't. Clearly the atonement is limited by something.
Zach
[ 11. October 2010, 17:07: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I thought it meant that humans are so utterly bad they can't accurately perceive the offer of grace through Jesus except by an act of God. Hence explaining why God necessarily chooses those who are saved and those who are not.
As it was always explained to me, it's not that humans are so totally bad. It's that humans are so totally tainted by sin -- infected, one might say -- that even when humans act out of the genuine impulse to do good, the good that humans do will go awry but for the grace of God.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We may not like the conclusions drawn, but we cannot dismiss them purely on the basis of that dislike. Was the cross of Christ ineffectual? For myself, I hardly see how Calvin departs from mainstream Christian teaching. Indeed Christ died for the whole world, but the elect share in God's Kingdom, and the damned don't. Clearly the atonement is limited by something.
Zach
This sounds like Calvin, but not like Dort. Calvin I think goes just as far as you have gone-- saying it is limited by something but getting no more specific than that. Which I think has the appeal of saying only what has been revealed to us w/o speculating beyond revelation. Dort, otoh, goes beyond this more modest statement to assert that there is a limitation, and that the limitation is entirely on God's end (not ours) and is intentional, eternal, and irrevocable. Again, while I think that has the virtue of logical consistency, it is speculating beyond what has been revealed, and in doing so presents a picture of God's character that is markedly different than what has been revealed.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
But the Calvinists aren't positing a different character for God. They still believe that God is perfectly good, and that the limitation of the atonement must be motivated from that goodness. If you are demanding the Calvinist must explain why God doesn't save the damned in their system, then you have to explain the same thing in yours. The way I see it, they're just leaving the unrevealed space in a different place than you are.
Either their way or yours we have a space between the elect and the damned, with God's justice and mercy in between.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But the Calvinists aren't positing a different character for God. They still believe that God is perfectly good, and that the limitation of the atonement must be motivated from that goodness. If you are demanding the Calvinist must explain why God doesn't save the damned in their system, then you have to explain the same thing in yours. The way I see it, they're just leaving the unrevealed space in a different place than you are.
Either their way or yours we have a space between the elect and the damned, with God's justice and mercy in between.
Zach
But there is a difference between simply resting in that space-- as Calvin does-- acknowledging it, and trusting it to God, trusting in his goodness-- and defining that space as something God eternally ordained and willed-- as Dort does.
Again, I'm not attributing that position to "Calvinists" in general as you are suggesting in your first sentence. I don't think most Calvinists are Dortians, and I don't think Calvin himself would affirm everything in Dort/TULIP. But I do believe that Dort is presenting a very different picture of the character of God than that which is found in Scripture and in historic Christianity.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I am pointing out that the space is eternally willed and ordained by God either way. Are you saying that God didn't know the damned would be damned from eternity? Are you denying that God could have granted the damned salvation, but chose not to? Are you disagreeing that God's decision is good if inscrutable? I hope I am not presuming to much to say that of course you accept all of the above. If you do, then I don't see that you have much space to reject the Dortists. You are, in fact, in precisely the same place as the Dortists.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am pointing out that the space is eternally willed and ordained by God either way. Are you saying that God didn't know the damned would be damned from eternity? Are you denying that God could have granted the damned salvation, but chose not to? ... I hope I am not presuming to much to say that of course you accept all of the above. .
Well, my position is far more Wesleyan (really radical Arminian) than a classic Calvinist position, so yeah, for me personally you are presuming too much-- what I would say would be yes to most of those questions. But that's off track since we're really talking about Calvinism here, not Arminianism. My point was that most classic Calvinists and Calvin himself would agree with this much-- what you've said so far-- and leave it at that. They would not specify beyond that to what Dort has said about limited atonement, because when you do so you are presuming too much. You are presuming to know what hasn't been revealed in Scripture. And to continue the logical progression of thought takes you to a place that is contrary to what has been revealed.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Are you disagreeing that God's decision is good if inscrutable?
I'm not saying that-- Dort (implicitly) is. Calvinists & Calvin himself are laying out what they believe is revealed in Scripture, then leaving the loose ends loose-- not tying up all the logical conclusions-- but simply agreeing that God's decision is inscrutable, but it is good. It is Dort who can't leave the loose ends loose, who can't leave the unknowable unknown, but seeks to parse out the logical conclusions, and so ends up with IMHO very unbiblical ends.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you do, then I don't see that you have much space to reject the Dortists. You are, in fact, in precisely the same place as the Dortists.
Well, again, I don't agree with your "ifs" so your "then" is misplaced. But again, it's the process that's as faulty as the conclusion, where Dort is concerned.
[ 11. October 2010, 19:58: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Seems to me that if you agree with the premises and can't object to the argument, then you have no real basis for rejecting the conclusion. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I need to check this, with a Calvin Scholar, but my recall is one point Calvin would have rejected outright and one is dubious. The rest he would likely want to nuance but on the whole thinks similarly.
Reformed theology has never been a one theologian tradition. The synod of Dort therefore when it drew up the five points in response to Arminius was not solely drawing on Calvin.
Predestinarianism, Arminianism and Universalism are all branches of Reformed theology. The debate does not exist in these terms outside of the tradition.
What calls itself Calvinism today owe one a portion of its thought to Calvin. If you don't believe me go and look at Calvin on the Sacraments, he really has far more in common with Anglo Catholicism than many would like.
Jengie
Indeed, once you accept the fact that predestinarianism, arminianism and universalism are all just schools of thought in one theological debate, and that Calvin did not teach memorialism, you can understand why it has been possible to achieve full union between Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Methodists in Australia and Canada.
The United Church of Canada's Twenty Articles of Faith, our official doctrine, is silent on the matter of the manner of salvation. Nobody in 1925 was bothered by multiple positions on the matter (aside from the dissenting Presbyterians).
This also explains the grandmother in the Observer recounting how her two grandfathers, one a former Presbyterian and another a former Methodist, both United Church ministers, would entertain her at family gatherings by trying to explain to her whose system of theology was better.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Seems to me that if you agree with the premises and can't object to the argument, then you have no real basis for rejecting the conclusion. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
But if the conclusion is contrary to what has been revealed in Scripture-- which I believe it has-- then it must be rejected. So one either rejects the premises (which is pretty much what I do), or retain the premises with some degree of "mystery" about how it all works out (which is what Calvin does).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
There's probably another difference in our view of justice.
I think for medieval and even reformation thinkers, the punishment of wickedness is seen as a Good Thing, so the existence of hell as a place of punishment is just.
Nowadays, I think most liberals at least don't accept the necessity of punishment, or even think it's counterproductive, choosing instead a vision of rehabilitation at all costs.*
I bet that's one thing that's made TULIP and indeed any dogma involving Hell hard to stomach for moderns when medieval folks would've assumed it, probably likewise with Anselmian PSA.
* Though some may shrink away in terror when they see the price tag.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
There's probably another difference in our view of justice.
I think for medieval and even reformation thinkers, the punishment of wickedness is seen as a Good Thing, so the existence of hell as a place of punishment is just.
Nowadays, I think most liberals at least don't accept the necessity of punishment, or even think it's counterproductive, choosing instead a vision of rehabilitation at all costs.*
I bet that's one thing that's made TULIP and indeed any dogma involving Hell hard to stomach for moderns when medieval folks would've assumed it, probably likewise with Anselmian PSA.
* Though some may shrink away in terror when they see the price tag.
I think you are probably right about the distinction in Medievil and Modern views (to say nothing of ancient) of justice, and that being problematic re: a discussion of hell. But I don't think that's the issue here. The issue with TULIP is a justice issue precisely because it's NOT about "punishment for sin", but rather a seemingly capricious predetermined act of the divine will. It's that part (limited atonement) that proves problematic not only for modern readers, but for most others from prior eras as well.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I can't forget the tagline seen years ago:
Anyone who doubts total depravity has only to look at my e-mail inbox.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The Dortists aren't saying that God's choice of election is capricious. They are steadfast that the choice is motivated by His goodness.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He didn't espouse limited atonement or its euphemisms "definite atonement" and "particular redemption", he DID swallow the pagan Augustinean lie of predestination of which limited atonement is an inescapable corollary via the reprobation in double predestination.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
From there, it is clear...
That seems to be what distinguishes Calvin from Calvinists. You are making assumptions from Calvin's doctrines. The difference with Calvin was that, while he did the same, he always left room for mystery and he also stopped short where he could not justify the logical conclusion of a doctrine from scripture.
Dort took things much further than Calvin did himself. Or let me put it this way, Calvin was a Calvinist in trajectory but not in destination.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Calvin was most definitely a Calvinist.
For that to be the case you'd need to find all 5 points clearly and explicitly articulated in the Institutes. The Reformed doctrine is clearly there but I'm not convinced all of Dort is.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
he DID swallow the pagan Augustinean lie of predestination of which limited atonement is an inescapable corollary via the reprobation in double predestination.
Er, Martin, 'inescapable corollary' is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about in my last post. Your point is only correct if your doctrine places human reason above divine revelation - something JC (both of them!) never did.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Dortists aren't saying that God's choice of election is capricious. They are steadfast that the choice is motivated by His goodness.
Zach
Yes, I understand that. But the way it is articulated by Dort-- but again, ONLY by Dort, not by Calvin or Calvinists in general-- it really IS capricious-- precisely because Dort choose to try to spell it all out and leave nothing to "inscrutable mystery" as Calvin and most others do.
iow, just sayin' it's not capricious doesn't make it so.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
From there, it is clear...
That seems to be what distinguishes Calvin from Calvinists. You are making assumptions from Calvin's doctrines. The difference with Calvin was that, while he did the same, he always left room for mystery and he also stopped short where he could not justify the logical conclusion of a doctrine from scripture.
Dort took things much further than Calvin did himself. Or let me put it this way, Calvin was a Calvinist in trajectory but not in destination.
Yes, well said. Although I would differentiate between "Calvinists" and "Dortians" since, as has been noted, there are a lot of different varieties of Calvinists. I don't find very many Dortians these days.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What a great thread so far! I've nothing really to add to what. Zach & Jengie wrote. It seems to me that Calvinism is really just facing up to some of the inevitable corrolaries of what many, perhaps most, Christian theologians had been teaching since Athanasius, maybe since the New Testament. Its where mediaeval scholasticism meets the beginings of modern thought. A restatement of eternal truth in the language of its time.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Then you're blind to it like JC was JS.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
It's a bit of a daft question isn't it? I mean there's no denomination called "The Calivinist Church" and so that most obvious meaning of the term Calvinist is "a follower of the teaching of Calvin", and many C's that I knew thought his contribution to Christology was his main original line of thought (to some - near Nestorian) whereas he regurgitated Augustine mostly on soteriology.
Plus . .there have always been C's and still are who think that some C teachers try and make everything too neat. So it's often point out that Calvin read "God who wills all men to be saved" in the common sense view. But so do many other C's. The most strident tirade againt limiting that text that I heard was by the arch-calvinist Peter Masters (he does good tirades).
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Then you're blind to it like JC was JS.
Which one?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Limited atonement in particular ("L") is not found in the Institutes, although it is the logical progression of his argument re: the elect and the reprobate.
Calvin does say (quite insistently and more than once) that saving grace in Christ is most definitely not offered to all. The explicit ‘limited atonement' formulation may not be made, but the case for it being correct is, I think, irresistible given Calvin's views on how salvation works.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[On total depravity] As it was always explained to me, it's not that humans are so totally bad. It's that humans are so totally tainted by sin -- infected, one might say -- that even when humans act out of the genuine impulse to do good, the good that humans do will go awry but for the grace of God.
That's how I've heard it explained, too, but Calvin himself puts it more strongly than that. And he needs to - plenty of other (non-Calvinist) Christians can agree that our depravity is total in the sense that it affects the whole of us. Calvin's view of depravity (or to be more accurate his view of goodness) is that every good must be entirely ascribed to God, and it is that which supports his distinctive theology.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am pointing out that the space is eternally willed and ordained by God either way. Are you saying that God didn't know the damned would be damned from eternity? Are you denying that God could have granted the damned salvation, but chose not to? Are you disagreeing that God's decision is good if inscrutable? I hope I am not presuming to much to say that of course you accept all of the above.
For me the controversial part is "God could have granted the damned salvation, but chose not to". If "salvation" simply means going to heaven and not hell, then yes, God could do it as he can do anything. But if salvation means making a choice for God, accepting his grace, being willing to become like him, and doing all that without compulsion, then it's not obvious that God could do that for someone who loves the darkness.
There are, of course, serious problems with that view - what free will means in the context of a fallen nature, why God makes the damned suffer rather than merely enjoy some lesser degree of natural bliss, why suffering is to be preferred to compulsion anyway. But(contra Zach and ken) it is not the same type of problem as the one Calvinism raises, because it at least provides a reason why God cannot do the same for all as he does for some - some creatures cooperate with his will and others resist it. For Calvin ALL humanity must resist God, unless God decrees otherwise - God must supply everything, even passive cooperation with God's plan requires him to restrain the depraved will to rebel, and the reason why he chooses not to do this for all is unanswered and unanswerable.
It is possible that a Christian might reasonably prefer either sort of unanswered question over the other, but to me they are plainly different, and leave different sorts of curiosities unsatisfied. It seems wrong to suggest that there is nothing to choose between Calvin and his critics on this issue.
[ 12. October 2010, 10:17: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
If you get back to that debate about the workings of Salvation I am technically a third form perhaps best characterised as aphophatic Reformed. Within the debate no position is a good reflection of what God actually is like. Therefore you need either to address the presumptions of the debate or say that there is no satisfactory solution.
I am not original in this thought, as I was taught it at University by I think D.W.D. Shaw although it may have been one other of the lecturers. It may have surprised some, but it was for me the first inkling that the subject needed a completely fresh approach.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
There are, of course, serious problems with that view - what free will means in the context of a fallen nature, why God makes the damned suffer rather than merely enjoy some lesser degree of natural bliss, why suffering is to be preferred to compulsion anyway. But(contra Zach and ken) it is not the same type of problem as the one Calvinism raises, because it at least provides a reason why God cannot do the same for all as he does for some - some creatures cooperate with his will and others resist it. For Calvin ALL humanity must resist God, unless God decrees otherwise - God must supply everything, even passive cooperation with God's plan requires him to restrain the depraved will to rebel, and the reason why he chooses not to do this for all is unanswered and unanswerable.
That's not a problem for Calvin at all, since no where is there any sense of compulsion in his view of predestination. Indeed, it is very much the same. The elect are conformed to the image of God, while the damned reject that image to their own destruction.
This remains baffling to me. Calvin and the Dortists merely think through the basic premises of the Christian religion all the way to the end, and let the reason for it all rest in the mystery of God's inscrutable goodness. Yet on all sides it is admitted that there is mystery to be had and that part of faith is living with that mystery. The Calvinists simply put their mystery where there actually is mystery rather than putting in a place they would prefer not to explore.
Zach
[ 12. October 2010, 12:26: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That's not a problem for Calvin at all, since no where is there any sense of compulsion in his view of predestination. Indeed, it is very much the same. The elect are conformed to the image of God, while the damned reject that image to their own destruction.
Depends what you mean by compulsion.
A Calvinist once explained it to me thus. Free will is the ability to carry out one's desires. The Elect have free will because God causes them to desire salvation and then grants them the means of attaining it. One is not free, however, to choose what one's desires actually are, and it is not even clear what freedom would mean in that sense.
I believe this is philosophically known as "compatibilism". Arminians take a more "libertarian" view of free will and say we really can choose our desires, and God grants us salvation or damnation accordingly.
One can argue that either position is incoherent, or that the Arminian position is merely a restated version of Pelagianism, but they are not the same.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I like free will plenty, yet I've taken enough philosophy of mind to know that it is a bizarre concept that has yet to be explained to practically anyone's satisfacation. So it must be asked of those who must defend free will so fiercely against predestination what free will actually is. Doesn't it mean that we are free to choose what we desire against compulsion? But where do our desires come from? Does it mean that our decisions can be based on nothing? But wouldn't that mean our free decisions are totally arbitrary?
To be totally honest, we don't really have to explain free will to assert its existence. Yet until we understand what it really is, we really have no basis for asserting that it is contrary to predestination. Which is where my view comes in. Yes, we have free will and are responsible for our actions. Yes, the Lord foreknows and predestines the elect and the damned. They work together in some way that I have yet to figure out. The answer rests somewhere in God's goodness and mercy and can only be discerned if God chooses to reveal it to us.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
New word- "satisfacation" The principle of being satisfactory enough for working philosophical principles. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Zach: "Good creatures do exist, because God Himself has willed it."
Who are they ? Are you one ?
Who are the bad creatures that God Himself (who else?) has willed ?
Am I one ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gurdur
Shipmate
# 857
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
New word- "satisfacation" The principle of being satisfactory enough for working philosophical principles.
I can't get no
Any bloody how, the philosopher Harriet Baber is quite fond of playing on the word and concept.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Hmm...
I think I was told by a prof in seminary that Wesley also had a notion of predestination, but it was a predestination of faith and not of people. The faith and those who adhered to it would persevere, which is a kind of predestination but different than saying that particular people would persevere.
Did God decide that some random bunch of somewhat self-selecting people would go onto punishment, or did God decide ahead of time that certain particular persons would be sent to hell regardless of what they tried to do?
Does Calvinism accuse God of creating the flaming pile of rubbish that people fall into or does it accuse him of actively pushing people into said flaming pile of rubbish?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The latter.
The greatest Satanic lie since the first one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
