|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Calvinism the Foundation of the Protestant Faith?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
On a different thread, Zach82 referred to Calvinism as "the foundation of the Protestant faith."
Really?
There are no Protestants who aren't Calvinists? Or maybe they're fallen-away Calvinists? Or come from branches of Protestantism that used to be Calvinist but no longer are? Maybe Arminians aren't "True" Protestants?
Was Luther a Calvinist?
What on earth does it mean to call Calvinism the foundation of the Protestant faith?
Earlier in the thread, Zach82 gave as what appears, in context, meant to be a definition of Calvinism:
quote:
Calvin ultimately imagined himself to be saying that salvation was a matter of what Christ has done on our behalf, rather than anything like trying to earn salvation through works. The Cross and resurrection have accomplished the Kingdom. God just gives us the grace of that Kingdom, for free, out of His profound goodness and love, and we as Christians can have faith in that grace in this life and the next.
There seems to be a good bit more to Calvinism than this. If this is Calvinism then all Christianity is Calvinism, which is absurd.
This is all the more surprising coming from Zach, since he is usually a stickler for using words according to their definitions.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
Many Charismatics and Pentecostals are non-Calvinist, often the dividing line is that they believe that one can lose their salvation.
There are a lot of other Protestants that are either pseudo-calvinistic or not Calvinist at all.
I'm not even sure how many Calvinists are truly Calvinist anymore? Some, it seems to me, have taken his teachings and extrapolated from them things which he never taught. Certainly the attitude behind Calvinism has taken some malicious turns (though not in all denominations, surely) since Calvin's time. Not that Calvin himself wasn't a bit cruel in some of this thoughts, but there is a spectrum across which his thoughts are applied which ranges from benign to Westboro Baptist.
Add to that the fact that Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary and refered to her as "the Mother of God" and you've got an even wider rift between Calvin and many modern Calvinists.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
No, Lutheranism is the bedrock of Protestantism because it is the tradition that came up with the five solas.
Calvinism is the effete froggie version of Protestant. Logical, as cold as ice, and total bollocks uness it agrees with the truth as revealed in the Bible.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It's complicated, mousethief!
I rose to the bait here a few years ago (a challenge thrown down by Call me Numpty) and spent ages reading the Institutes. I came to a couple of provisional conclusions.
1. Calvin was a lot more nuanced than he has often been presented.
2. In particular, the T.U.L.I.P summary has effectively taken over a wider consideration of the range of thought in the Institutes. Well known of course, but here is the summary.
quote:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
That summary has had profound and pervasive effects but I'm inclined to the view that it has extracted from Calvin's theology, rather than summarised it, and it has also over-simplified his thought.
TULIP Calvinism is not the foundation of the protestant faith. The foundation of protestantism is protest against certain Traditional understandings and expressions. The hope was reform, not schism. The result was schism and a range of different understandings of what might constitute a reasonable reformed theology. Our forefathers were rather more in agreement about what they were against than any systematic theological expression of what they were for.
We've been playing Calvinism v Lutheranism v Arminianism (and various variations on those themes) ever since. We're a rowdy lot.
Although this summary does not tell it all by any many of means, there is a quite useful table in this Wiki article re Lutheranism
Scroll to the para entitled "Comparison among Protestants."
[ 22. June 2012, 07:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Calvinism does not equal Calvin. they are two very different and distinct things.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Many in the Reformed tradition, as represented by TULIP, are what I'd call sub-Calvinists, just as many respected Roman Catholic theologians of the C19 and early C20 are what I'd call, sub-Thomists. Neither group are a credit to their claimed master.
Having said that, I don't think Calvin, real Calvinism or sub-Calvinism are the foundation of the Protestant take on the Christian faith. An ingredient, yes, but only an ingredient.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Mariner
Sip the ship
# 4
|
Posted
All these years and we still argue over systems, none of which are consistent with all that is revealed in scripture. Is that saying something about our longing for certainty and firm structure when God seems to deal with humanity, as the whole Bible suggests, in a far more random and subjective way?
JAT
--------------------
Ship of Fools' first novel, Rattles & Rosettes, is the tale of two football (soccer) fans: 16-year-old Tom in 1914 and Dan in 2010. More at www.rattlesandrosettes.com
Posts: 2582 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
irish_lord99: I'm not even sure how many Calvinists are truly Calvinist anymore?
The Dutch Reformed Church (now incorporated in the Protestant Church of the Netherlands) is officially Calvinist, but in practice it has moved away quite far from his teachings. I'd even venture that most of its members know very little about Calvin. Once in a conversation with some church members, I tried to explain a bit of what he taught, and they were actually quite shocked!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
You're a mystic, AM.
Is the real enemy the reductionist effect, rather than the clarifying effect, of systematic theology(ies)?
Probably!
[Actually, I think that's probably an Orthodox thought. We have to have some structures to hold and express our knowing in part, but I think they only have value to the extent that we recognise their incompleteness, rather than wrap ourselves too tightly in them.
"The practice of inner prayer aims at union with God on a level beyond images, concepts and language?". "All of our theological riches are filthy rags?"
Scary - and maybe liberating?]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To be honest, I was quite surprised at Zach82's outburst on the other thread ... because, as both Mousethief and Fr Gregory have acknowledged, his (somewhat truncated?) definition of the Calvinistic position is one that almost everyone can sign up to - at least, almost everyone with a relatively conservative 'take' on the Christian faith.
No, it should have been obvious from the context that the term 'monstrous' was being applied to those aspects of popular Calvinism that even Calvinists themselves wriggle at ... the full-on TULIP stuff.
I used to be fairly TU IP or perhaps TUlIP ... but gradually found all the petals beginning to drop off ...
Whether that means that I'm no longer really a Protestant but haven't quite woken up to the fact or acknowledged it yet, I don't know ...
Fr Gregory will correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect the 'monstrous' bit referred to Dort and to double-predestination.
As to Zach82's question about whether God is right or justified to 'condemn' certain people etc ... well, as Fr Gregory says, that ain't our call. I have absolutely no idea how God will apply his mercy. It's not my call to judge or comment. Even speculation on this point - interesting as it might be - seems futile.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: I used to be fairly TU IP or perhaps TUlIP ... but gradually found all the petals beginning to drop off ...
She loves me, she loves me not. She loves me, she loves me not...
I wonder where you'll end up ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The answer to the OP is "obviously not" because the beginings of hte particular styles and traditions of Christianity that later got called protestantism go back to the late 14th century, including Wyclif and Hus. The Reformation may have happened in 15-whatever. but it had been very likeley that something like that was going to happen since the Council of Constance went pear-shaped.
As it is now? Although I'm happy, even pround, to identify myself as a "calvinist". I don't think so. The painful thread on American evangelicals and the poo, with all that business about stereotyped American evangelicals supposedly thinking themselves being better or different or stronger than the bloke lying on the side of the street in need of care, shows how far some strands of Protestantism are from the good news of salvation by the grace of God through faith in Jesus.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You'll know better than I do, ken, but didn't Calvin himself refer to his own predestination scheme as a 'dread decree'?
He seemed quite embarrassed by the implications of it.
I think you're right historically, the roots of Protestantism do go back further - to Lollardy, the Hussites, Waldensians etc - although I doubt if all of these groups would have signed up to what later emerged ...
George MacLeod (MacDonald?) of Iona Community fame once said that 'Calvinism is a virus, you never quite recover from it ...'
For what it's worth, I think the broader Reformed tradition gives us a lot to be proud of ... so I wouldn't be at all snarky about you being proud of your Calvinistic roots. But it's a position to hold through gritted teeth at times ...
I'm not sure I want to go around with gritted teeth though. But I'm sure other traditions have other reasons to grit their teeth ... in order not to have to inhale the smell of their own shit.
Shit is shit. It's just different shit in different traditions within Christianity.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post ...
I've been thinking about this some more ...
There's a reluctance to abandon Calvinism on the part of many Protestants because there's an almost (often unspoken) sense that Calvinism IS the Gospel ... rather than elements/aspects of it being commensurate with the Gospel - such as the parts that Zach82 has run up the flagpole and which both MT and Fr Gregory have saluted ...
It's the trailing banners that dangle from that particular flag that have caused them to put their hands back down, it seems to me ...
It's axiomatic, of course, that Calvinists believe that their 'take' on things is the correct one, they wouldn't be Calvinists otherwise ... but I dunno, I suspect it goes further and gets more psychobabble-ish than that.
I used to read Calvinistic publications like Evangelicals Now or Evangelicalism Today - one was more hard-line than t'other and it used to tickle me how one of them always included an article about some visit to some part of the world or other - Finland, Indonesia, wherever ... where the authors encountered forms of Protestantism that needed to be put straight on 'the doctrines of Grace.'
These articles almost invariably ended not in the 'I made my excuses and left' way that salacious News of The World stories did but with the authors giving a sermon to a Brethren or a Pentecostal assembly or some other outfit and putting them right on things ...
It was all rather quaint.
When I first encountered the Orthodox, just to use them as an example, I was both relieved and somewhat shocked to encounter a body of believers that weren't apparently shaped by Calvinism in any way, shape or form. Poor old Cyril Lukaris, I thought, he'd got to the bottom of things at last, and look what happened to him ... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Part of me thought (and still thinks to a certain extent) 'How liberating to have a take on the Gospel free of cold, cold Calvin ...'
But equally, 'Is it really the Gospel? Surely the Apostle Paul was some kind of Calvinist? It's there in Romans in black and white ...'
I suspect, but I might be wrong, that this is what lies behind Zach82's knee-jerk reaction to Fr Gregory's comments.
I suspect there's an element of it with Johnny S too, 'Nah, you kidding me, the NT clearly portrays God as very, very angry indeed ...'
So the question remains, is Tradition at variance with scripture at this point? Or are us Proddy types simply reading the scriptures through Calvinist lenses (with varying prescriptions in terms of strength) ... ?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The painful thread on American evangelicals and the poo
Some day soon there'll be fields for it...
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
The "foundation of the Protestant faith", so far as I am aware, is a refusal to accept things as true merely because someone in a nice hat says they are.
All the doctrines and theologies it has thrown up - Calvinism included - are simply a result of different people working things out for themselves rather than accepting what they're told. They aren't foundational in the same way.
(None of which is to say there aren't a lot of protestants who blindly follow what their church leaders say, of course!)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You'll know better than I do, ken, but didn't Calvin himself refer to his own predestination scheme as a 'dread decree'?
Decretum horribile.
Chesterton talked about those who tried to "bind omnipotence in the chains of syllogism".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
As Gamaliel has pointed out, some of the more starchy Reformed types would indeed argue that calvinism is the essence of evangelicalism, which is in turn the essence of Protestantism. Other forms of evangelicalism are seen as deficient, man-centred rather than God-centred etc etc. In fact they spend more time eye-rolling about things like the Alpha Course than even the Ship does ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) They would to varying degrees believe that they have a duty to set other evangelicals straight when the opportunity presents itself (non-evangelicals are Not Proper Christians and therefore not worth bothering with ). They are generally a pretty intense, charmless bunch however, so I'm not sure they get much opportunity.
[ 22. June 2012, 11:53: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
PS One publication Gamaliel has sadly missed out on is The Evangelical Times, which is forever lamenting the lack of a 'Reformed witness' in Micronesia or Burkino Faso or wherever.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
parm
Shipmate
# 9287
|
Posted
Well, Methodists are usually considered protestant, and we're pretty squarely in the Arminian camp, at least.
(I saw 'we'; I'm not an especially big fan of Arminius' Remonstrance, as it appears to more strongly preclude the Universalist tendancies I drift towards than Calvin's five points, but I like where Arminius is coming from [man's unimpaired free will] more than Calvin)
--------------------
Honestly, I have no idea.
Posts: 98 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Peter may be the rock on which the Roman Catholic Church is built, but it is really Augustine and Thomas Aquinas that form the foundation of its theology.
Likewise, Martin Luther and Jan Huss may have started things rolling, but it was Calvin that really set the intellectual agenda for Protestantism. Not everyone agreed with every point, but they were the points that everyone talked about. Even the Arminians agreed that God predestines the elect- they just thought human will had something to do with it.
Was Martin Luther a Calvinist? If Calvinism refers to the doctrine of Predestination, then yes he was. He indeed referred to the doctrine of Predestination as the make-or-break doctrine of the Reformation.
To repeat what I said in the other thread, do we have to agree with or even like Calvin? NOPE. Personally I greatly disagree with Calvin on the sacraments. Is he unfairly maligned by anyone and practically everyone that fancies himself theological? Yep.
[ 22. June 2012, 12:11: 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
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Was Martin Luther a Calvinist? If Calvinism refers to the doctrine of Predestination, then yes he was. He indeed referred to the doctrine of Predestination as the make-or-break doctrine of the Reformation.
This is a topic on which I'm quite ignorant, so this is not meant to be a pointed or sarcastic reply but rather a sincere question: Isn't that rather like saying that Marx was a Leninist, if Leninism refers to the doctrine of proletarian revolution? In other words, I was under the assumption that Luther predated Calvin with enough distance not to be significantly influenced by him. Or am I just way off base there?
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I am not saying Calvin invented the doctrines of the Reformation. Heck- Thomas Aquinas believed in predestination. Calvin was the one who made Protestantism a coherent system and gave it its intellectual agenda. He is why Protestants looked to Geneva as the center of Protestantism.
That's what I meant. If that isn't what you want to call the "foundation," then I apologize for the confusion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I might be missing something, but I thought Calvin had a reasonably 'high' view of the sacraments, Zach82, certainly more so than many of those who followed in his wake ...
And I've always taken you to be similar in your take on these things ...
Just shows ...
@Yerevan - yes, you're right, but it was The Evangelical Times I had in mind.
It was the one I was alluding to but had forgetten the title. I do remember all those articles about them attending services in Burkino Faso or Papua New Guinea or wherever it happened to be and putting everyone straight ...
With about as much charm as a turd pasty ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
I think the Cal-Arm debate misses the point, I think the parts of the NT that seem to be heading in two different directions on this are a sign that we're trying to understand with human minds a God who cannot rightly be put into a box with a tidy acrostic.
One thing I've noticed about the neo-Cals is they sure don't have much humility for a group that's so committed to their own Total Depravity.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Isn't Calvinism based on Augustine too, Zach?
Reading through City of God I found that what I was not so sure about seem to have a longer history than the reformation.
But there is the question of the sovereignty of God which is stronger in Calvinism than other strands of protestantism which I can't let go of.
Balaam - Closer to Calvinism than anything else.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Balaam:
quote:
Isn't Calvinism based on Augustine too, Zach?
Exactly, which also explains why the Orthodox church is different, although I can't claim expertise here.
I'm not sure Calvin added anything to Augustine in terms of Soteriology, and when I was a calvinist it was commonly believed that his main contribution was to the understanding of the Incarnation.
It is absurd to say that protestantism is based on calvinism. Why would anyone think that when only a minority of self claiming protestants also would identify as calvinists?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I disagree with Zach. Luther was not a Calvinist. He wasn't a proto-Calvinist. He wasn't a slow-learning Calvinist whose deficient theology just needed some fixing up from the master. (I've come across all three attitudes among Calvinists when it comes to Luther.)
First of all, Luther did not embrace double predestination. His thinking on the subject went like this: Scripture tells us that God wills all to be saved. From our human perspective, that doesn't seem to be the case, even within the Christian community; and Scripture also implies that some people will not be saved. There's no way to resolve the paradox, so we don't. We trust God's promises to save those who have faith in God, commend us all to God's care and let God sort us out.
But more importantly, Calvinism isn't only predestination. Calvinism involves other theological assertions and practices. If you pick the TULIP petals, so to speak, you'll find disagreements between Luther and Calvin on other points. The two also had different ideas about Eucharistic theology and about worship in general. Someone once compared the Church during the Reformation to a chest of drawers; whereas Luther's m.o. in cleaning out the drawers was to pick out piecemeal items in the drawer that he thought were detrimental to the Gospel message, while leaving most of the rest behind, Calvin's m.o. was to dump the drawers out, then replace the contents as he saw fit. (And the Anabaptists just destroyed the chest of drawers and contents, and started over.) Even allowing for the differences between Calvin's own thoughts and their morphing into something rather different, and far less nuanced, over time...Lutheranism and Calvinism operate from different points of view.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I only didn't say everything in Protestantism is based on Calvin or that every Protestant theologian was inspired by him or agrees with him. Is anyone even reading my posts without an eye to being offended these days?
--------------------
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
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I'm not offended, Zach -- I'm just sayin'.
Even after 18 years in church and many years of religious education in an ueber-Lutheran milieu, I never learned about John Calvin or Calvinism until I went away to a (secular) university and took a proper course in the Protestant Reformation. It's simply not on the radar of most Lutherans, even after the recent agreement involving the ELCA and several church bodies with a Reformed pedigree (PCUSA, UCC and others) that formalized altar and pulpit fellowship between us all.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
He's not on the radar for most Episcopalians these days either. But if you go back and read the Anglican and Lutheran texts from the Reformation there is a very clear dialogue with Calvin. They had their differences, but they saw their mission as essentially one of solidarity with the doctrines he espoused. I think reading Calvin gives a lot of insight into what Luther and other Reformers were thinking and writing about.
People are clearly having problems with calling him the "foundation," but I've clarified what I meant. Calvin is the pillar, pediment, groin vault, balustrade, pick whatever architectural metaphor you like for "an extremely central figure in Protestant theology."
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
CSL1, I think you're onto something there ...
One of the paradoxes of a certain kind of Calvinist (by no means all) is that they'll rail against Arminians as being virtual closet Papists or Pelagians, seeking to justify themselves ... and take anything that looks like an anthropocentric approach or self-effort as an attempt to be justified by works and therefore prideful and worthy of all condemnation ...
But in the very act of denouncing everyone else for these tendencies they can fail to see the Pharisaisism and pride of their own position ...
I'm making a very broad generalism here ...
It's the solipsism that Kaplan alluded to.
And yes, it is impossible to reduce God's sovereignty, the plan of salvation or anything else in soteriological or theological terms to a nice neat acrostic.
At the extreme, it can also lead to a smug form of self-righteousness whilst insisting on God's sovereignty and free grace ...
Fr Gregory and I have had various discussions about Calvinism over the years (he's tried to cure me of its more baleful effects) and he once said something that struck a real chord in this respect, namely that another paradox of extreme Calvinism is that whilst setting out to protect God's sovereignty and the 'crown rights of King Jesus' it actually boxes God in and makes him subject to his own sovereignty!
In fact, the logical conclusion of Calvinism, when taken to an extreme, is to rob Almighty God of any sovereignty whatsoever, the very thing that it seeks to assert and protect.
Ok, so there are nuances and gradations along that continuum. Calvinism and Calvinists are right to insist on God's sovereignty, but there's something in the uber-Scholastic way that they do it that can end up in solipsism.
On the Sovereign Grace thing ... now there's a wriggly and dodgy outfit if ever was one and the tragedy is that they use weasel words to justify the way they con and oppress people. They hide behind a mask of false piety. I won't name names, but they've effectively used their Calvinistic sound-bites in a casuistic way both to gull their own followers and to garner more support from the broadly Calvinistic evangelical mainstream than they deserve ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I might have overreacted to Fr.Gregory's original statement, but in the end lobbing names like that is a weasely thing to do, and he only confirmed his weasely attitude about it all with subsequent posts.
I don't agree with every point in Calvinism, but it deserves just as much respect as Orthodoxy. That's what my objections there are about. He would still be just as Orthodox if he stopped calling names and had a little charity for Calvinists, wouldn't he?
--------------------
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
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But in the very act of denouncing everyone else for these tendencies they can fail to see the Pharisaisism and pride of their own position ...
At the extreme, it can also lead to a smug form of self-righteousness whilst insisting on God's sovereignty and free grace ...
Having spent a year and a half amongst a group of young neo-Cals, I can attest to the smugness, at least in that particular group. In their understanding of their own total depravity, they projected an aura of extreme self-righteous! I tried to point out the obvious non-sequitur, but generally it felt like explaining the quadratic equation to tabby cats.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Sovereign Grace thing ... now there's a wriggly and dodgy outfit if ever was one and the tragedy is that they use weasel words to justify the way they con and oppress people. They hide behind a mask of false piety. I won't name names, but they've effectively used their Calvinistic sound-bites in a casuistic way both to gull their own followers and to garner more support from the broadly Calvinistic evangelical mainstream than they deserve ...
Don't get me started on SGI. The neo-Cal church referenced above was headed by a leader who'd come straight from SGI, as was his right-hand man on the Elder's Team, it was something of a New Frontiers/Sovereign Grace hybrid, though officially NFI. I got a good taste of SGI, right down to the controlled prophecy mic, the small groups that were used to gather dirt, the backroom politicking that ruins careers, the innuendo that ruins reputations, but is always done with white gloves and pious words ("But brother, I would never do anything to hurt you, we're doing this because we love you") They aren't just dodgy, they're diabolical.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But if you go back and read the Anglican and Lutheran texts from the Reformation there is a very clear dialogue with Calvin. They had their differences, but they saw their mission as essentially one of solidarity with the doctrines he espoused. I think reading Calvin gives a lot of insight into what Luther and other Reformers were thinking and writing about.
There are two things here that aren't quite right.
The first is that throughout the Reformation the division between Lutheran and Reformed was in many ways almost as deep as that between Roman Catholics and Protestant. In many cases, the Lutherans would ally with the Roman Catholics in preference to the Reformed - the use of religious statuary being the most practically salient point. (The sticker for Luther theologically was the Eucharist. Melanchthon was closer to the Reformed on the Eucharist, but wasn't at all happy with predestination.)
The second is that there were a lot more names in the Reformed party than just Calvin. Calvin was the most articulate and systematic, and after Geneva burnt Servetus, the most prominent. But there were many names around other than Calvin: Zwingli, who was dead before Calvin started writing, and Bucer, for instance, were among the elder statesmen of the Reformed party. (For Luther, Calvin would have been one more young whippersnapper.) During Calvin's lifetime it was only really the French-speaking Reformed who were doctrinaire Calvinists; it was only after his lifetime that he was regarded more widely as the authority on Reformed belief.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
irish_lord99: I'm not even sure how many Calvinists are truly Calvinist anymore?
The Dutch Reformed Church (now incorporated in the Protestant Church of the Netherlands) is officially Calvinist, but in practice it has moved away quite far from his teachings. I'd even venture that most of its members know very little about Calvin. Once in a conversation with some church members, I tried to explain a bit of what he taught, and they were actually quite shocked!
Knowing little of Calvin is not new in Reformed circles, there is an interesting debate over whether Jonathan Edwards ever read any actual work of John Calvin rather than commentators on him. Yet he is held to be a Reformed theologian by most.
Further Arminius was of course a Reformed theologian and the argument he had with other Dutch Reformed theologians was as much about Dutch identity as about Predestinarianism, and Calvin called Luther an apostle. In a tradition that at once is profoundly aniconic and verbose, simplicity will always mislead.
Two things, Calvin is not first generation protestant but second, he is later than Luther. Also Calvin would himself decline the role, the mother of Protestantism is of course the Roman Catholic Church! If it had not got itself into the state it did, Protestantism would not exist.
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
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Two things, Calvin is not first generation protestant but second, he is later than Luther.
I've heard it argued that this is an important distinction. Luther evolved his theology on the hoof in the midst of fierce controversy. He took early modern Catholicism as his starting point and changed only what he felt needed to be changed. Calvin on the other hand sat down as a second generation reformer to work out a systematic theology from scratch.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
I remember the first time I heard about Calvinism, in a high school history lecture talking about the Reformation. From a moderate Anglican standpoint like I had growing up (and now), I found the concepts of limited atonement and "double predestination" to be quite shocking. Over the years I have allowed myself to be convinced that no one could actually believe in a God who arbitrarily chooses some people for heaven and lets the others rot, and there's nothing they can do about it, all because a distant ancestor ate an apple he wasn't supposed to 6000 years ago. That God sounds worse than Hitler.
I realize now, having seen some of the asinine things that some people believe, that raw Calvinism is still a thing. But Calvinism has made no obvious appearance in any Protestant setting (Anglican, Lutheran) that I have set foot in. To the extent that the Episcopal parishes I've been to express any theology at all from the pulpit, it's usually of the Lutheran "we all have free will to choose salvation, but that is through God's grace and our own faith, and not through good works" variety, maybe with a hint of Arminianism.
Calvin may have had some very early influence in the Church of England, but it's been drowned out by Lutheranish doctrine, Catholic practice and liberal sentiment.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yes, but small-c calvinism, as held by many Anglican evangelicals until recently (and some of us still), and by people like Cranmer and many of the English Reformers, and Baxter and others in later generations is little more than orthodox Christian doctrine as described in a way that takes the omnipotence and eternity of God seriously. It is, frankly, the only approach that makes the traditional doctrines about God credible.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Well, how does small c-calvinism make the traditional doctrines about God any more credible than, say, small-o orthodoxy might or even large O Orthodoxy for that matter ... or small c or large C Catholicism ...
I know you have a soft spot for small c Calvinism, Ken, but it's not as if it's the only show in town.
The aspects of it that Zach82 cited gained nods of approval from both Mousethief and Fr Gregory. Surely there is more to even small-c Calvinism than that?
If that were the case then both Mousethief and Fr Gregory could be described as Calvinists and don't see either of them wanting to embrace that epithet any time soon ...
What are you saying? That YOU find small-c Calvinism credible or that everyone else should?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, but small-c calvinism, as held by many Anglican evangelicals until recently (and some of us still), and by people like Cranmer and many of the English Reformers, and Baxter and others in later generations is little more than orthodox Christian doctrine as described in a way that takes the omnipotence and eternity of God seriously. It is, frankly, the only approach that makes the traditional doctrines about God credible.
Calvinism makes calvinism credible? What an insight.
If on the one hand you have John the Evangelist saying that God loves mankind so much and on the other you've got some French guy who invents a theological system that makes God out to be an arbitrary dick who will enjoy seeing the members of Team B fry for all eternity, maybe the French guy is just wrong.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Remember that Universalism is really four point Cavinism. Oh an Calvin's predestinarianism isn't the later form, but something far more important, the fact that Salvation is God's and God's alone. The challenge for the Christian is to let go of the need to sort out their salvation and leave that where it truly belongs in God's hands.
From the perspective of eternity nothing is arbitary unless everything is.
Jengie
[ 22. June 2012, 22:29: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Another thing for accuracy there is no such tradition as Calvinism, not in the sense of some pure untainted line that springs directly from John Calvin. The mergering in Calvin's day of the Genevan and Zurich churches has left its mark. The more groups choose to proclaim themselves as Calvinist the more likely they are to adopt a Zwinglian Eucharistic theology (Calvin's own can be interpreted as spiritual presence). Now Zwingli is earlier Calvin as does Farel; Bucer and Knox come soon afterwards, the tradition never ever speaks with one voice it is always polyphonic. That is why it is more correctly called Reformed.
Oh Calvin at leisure writing up his institutes is a nice conceit, the evidence is that he worked himself to death and died comparatively young. A refugee working in a foreign city, writing largely for fellow refugees (Calvin's Institutes came out in French very shortly after they came out in Latin). Nor was he writing a systematic theology, he could not be, there was no modern systematic theology for him to take as an example. His examplar is more likely to be medieval scholasticism that he takes and does something new with but it is his successors who developed systematic theology. Not everything is tidy in Calvin either; he is a good rhetorician and covers some of the messes skillfully but they are there. These are myths created by those who are trying to tidy him up.
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's the solipsism that Kaplan alluded to.
I don't have the faintest idea of what you're referring to, Gammy.
Are you sure you're not thinking of syllogism, which I did use in the Chesterton quote, which starts with s, ends with m, and has the same number of syllables, but has nothing to do with solipsism?
Further on the decretum horribile, have you read Charles Wesley's exposure of Calvin's cosmic fascism in his The Horrible Decree?
It begins:
Sinners, abhor the Fiend,
His other gospel hear:
The God of truth did not intend
The Thing his Words declare,
He offers grace to All,
Which most cannot embrace
Mock'd with an ineffectual Call
And insufficient grace.
and then gets even better as it proceeds.
It is in glorious line with his, "Your sovereign grace too all extends....It reaches all mankind", and, "The arms of love which compass me would all mankind embrace".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Could someone recommend a book or books that would help the non-academic understand Calvin and Calvinism? I'm still Confused.
Thanks. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
I think reading Calvin gives a lot of insight into what Luther and other Reformers were thinking and writing about.
I think reading Luther gives a lot of insight into what Luther was thinking about.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Even the Arminians agreed that God predestines the elect- they just thought human will had something to do with it.
Sort of.
There is an excellent chapter in Roger E. Olson's Arminian Theology: Myths And Realities (IVP)called Myth 8: Arminians Do Not Believe In Predestination.
For Arminians predestination is corporate: the total body of all those who freely trust in Christ are predestined to be saved.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Janine: quote:
One would hope the foundation of any Christian faith would be the Lord Jesus Christ, to start with.
In ground level piety you are right.
But He lived, died, rose and ascended two thousand years ago, and the writers of the NT lived and died back then, too. Now there are multiple ideas of what he and his followers meant by a good number of things they said, ideas expressed through the ages by Ignatius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, John Nelson Darby and many more (including that original thinker, Martin PC Not ), and no one is left on earth from that time to do theological tie-breakers. So we natter on.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
We natter on about what sort of dish, plate, rack, toasting fork or doily we use to serve up the Bread of Life, and we natter about what condiments we want to / should / may put on it to help us choke it down.
It's still -- He's still -- the same Bread.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
