Evidence for God from Science

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

Yes, some of that is true. Many of the early Patristics were Greek and prior to their conversion to Christianity or in the context of their education they were educated in the knowledge of their times. Some very significant changes take place however in the 4th century when Christianity becomes the State Church. In a very short period of time, those describing themselves as "Christians" went from about 10% to 90% of the population and you had an established Religious System that was absorbed and in some ways became foundational to how Christianity began to be expressed as opposed to it's first 3 centuries. That doesn't enter in so much here, but clearly you had influences in Augustine, Aquinus and almost across the board with many of the Patristics who brought with them and applied these different modes of thinking.

What's different with Calvin in in the wake of the "rediscovery" of much of this is Calvin not only brought his influences, he adopted wholescale the methods of logic and systematic examination and applied them to Scripture in a manner that made these influences foundational and not just peripheral things that can be observed. Calvin's Institutes was in fact, the first systematic theology ever produced. I'm saying, you can't take a foundational method like that and apply it to Scripture that was written in a different context (with a primarily Eastern mindset) and not come out with some significant changes that are based on the methods used and not just Scripture. Yes we can qualify how Calvin's Divine Determinism carries with it some differences from the determinism of Greek Philosophy. When I look at it however, even while accepting those differences, the practical result is not all that different overall.

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

.

Different foundational assumptions, similar process of thought and results with a tendency that God becomes defined by the predictability of his choices and decisions.

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

I think that's partially true. Calvin certainly would not have accepted the underlying values and results of Stoicism itself, but clearly he took the methodology and discipline of thought and applied it within the new context to a degree never done before with results that brought about a very different view of God and His working among His people than had existed before. There's no such thing as a value-less heremeneutic framework. Whenever you bring a system to Scripture by which you interpret it, there are values and assumptions within that system that influence the outcome. It's my assertion that Calvin's approach was so radically different historically and methodologically that it applied elements of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law that were not present in the original texts or in the minds and hearts of those who wrote the inspired texts themselves. That bears careful examination to see what impact those influences produced.

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

There's many more options than Open Theism, and as I hope I've tried to demonstrate there's a pretty broad range within Calvinism itself as to how fatalistic things are and can become. I think you'd agree that Hyper-Calvinism or Extreme High Calvinism is qualitatively different in many regards from Low Calvinism that recognizes God's power to manage the results of Men's choices into ultimately fulfilling his purposes. High Calvinism in it's most deterministic form assumes that God is not omnipotent unless He exercises that omnipotence and it in effect denies or excludes that God can or would choose not to act and provide moral agency to men whom He created in His image.

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

I can't write it off that easily. We're speaking of degree of impact and incorporation into the entire hermeneutical approach. I certainly can and do see significant impacts upon Augustine and Aquinas from Plato and Aristotle for example, but I'd argue that in those instances, the impacts were not as foundational as what transpired under Calvin. Obviously each person who examines this is going to form their own conclusions.

OK, a quick Tiptoe through the TULIP.

I'm assuming most who would be interested enough to read this, already are familiar with it, so I won't spend a great deal of time on it and try to cover it all here in one post.

Just a reminder, the TULIP is a mneumonic device designed to summarize a response to Arminianism that established 5 points of belief which were countered with 5 points. As such, it's Arminianism that framed this interaction. It's debatable whether Calvinism would have developed these 5 emphases in quite this manner independently on their own, but regardless of speculation it has since over the years elevated in the minds and practices of many.

T - Total Depravity

Sometimes this is not understood clearly. It doesn't mean that humans are as evil as they can possibly be. What it means is that every human being (except Jesus Christ) is infected and so affected by sin that he or she is utterly helpless to please God before being regenerated by the Spirit of God. Calvinism like most other Christian Theological systems recognizes that unsaved people can do good things. They would refer to these as "Civic Virtues" or Common Grace and draw no parallel to spiritual regeneration.

Calvin refers to this in his Institutes as follows:

the whole [of every] man is overwhelmed - as by a deluge - from head to foot so that no part is immune from sin and all that proceeds from him is to be imputed to sin. As Paul says all turnings of the thoughts ... are enmities against God ... and therefore death" (Institutes 2.1.9)

Spiritual death is literal. In no ways a metaphor. The natural fallen human is totally incapable of desiring God or even the things of God. A person cannot come to God unless God Himself plants the desire within such a person. There is no element of human faith or work making this transition that is causal. These are secondary results to the work that God and only God can do. This has to be understood or else the further steps outlined in the TULIP will make no sense.

U - Unconditional Election

Election is to my understanding another biblical word for predestination to salvation (or service). This component of faith is one that is at times misunderstood or quibbled upon by those who call themselves Calvinist or Reformed but I think it's very clearly taught by Calvin and in many subsequent works that what is being spoken of here is what is commonly known as "double predestination." It means that the only determinative element to whether a person is saved to eternal life or condemned to hell is God's will.

This is without question one of the most difficult elements of Calvinism to accept for many people and in fact, some who consider themselves Calvinist, will subscribe instead to what they call single predestination meaning that God only actively calls those who are saved and rather than making a proactive decision with regard to those going to hell, just declines to save them. I frankly can't find any real reason why the implication of Calvinism asserting that God chooses specific individuals to create for the express purpose of sending them to hell with no correlation to anything for which they have any control, can be denied.

Calvin certainly knew what he was saying in this areas and he was clear.

God once established by His eternal and unchangeable plan those whom He long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction." (Calvin's Institutes 3.21.7)

If that's not clear enough Calvin goes on shortly thereafter, and says,

Therefore those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for His own children." (Calvin's Institutes 3.27.1)

Calvin referred to this once as "God's Horrible Decree." Calvin, knew exactly what he was saying. To reassert to make it perfectly clear, the basis for Gods choice of those who go to Heaven and those whe go to hell, has no basis at all within the person so chosen. It comes down solely to the good pleasure of God's devine will and nothing else. This has nothing to do whatsoever with the foreseen character or choices of any person.

I'll address this more evaluatively later. For now, this is simply a statement of fact. If it sounds harsh in any manner, it is solely attributable to the position itself, not to any prejudice on my part in seeking to make it sound harsher than it is. Many who take the name Calvinist have difficulty with this and attempt to soften it or rationalize it in some manner. Those who do however, are parting company with Calvin Himself.

L - Limited Atonement

Limited atonement is also sometimes called "particular redemption". Of all the points of the TULIP this is the one that brings the most discussion and also the most internal debate even between those who identify themselves as Calvinists. When someone identifies themselves as a 4 point Calvinist instead of a 5 point Calvinist, they almost always mean that they hold to the T, U, I, and P but not the L. Most 5 point Calvinists will tell you the the "L" is essential and it cannot be dropped without completely undermining the entire system. It's debatable but there are those too who believe that Calvin Himself would not hold with the "L" as it is stated commonly today and that it was added by those who build upon the foundation Calvin built afterwards.

Much of this area ties into something too that is commonly known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). All Calvinists (and I think I'm appropriately using a universal here) would agree with PSA as would many non-Calvinists. It's a primary view of the Atonement. It's much more than just this, but in a nutshell, it states that Christ bore the punishment of Sin and the Wrath of God rightly deserved by us in order that God might save those people He intends to save. Limited atonement says God only intends to save some people, those whom are the elect whom God has predestined to salvation. Many non-reformed evangelicals would say that God intends for Christ's sacrifice to be sufficient for all (not necessarily applied to all). Most Calvinists would respond that this necessarily leads to Universalism as because God is Omnipotent and Sovereign it's not possible for His will not to be accomplished.

In a very strong sense, this ties closely to the U - Unconditional Election. If you accept Unconditional Election as double predestination, then Limited Atonement isn't really going to be a problem at all. If God actively decides to create some people with the express purpose of sending them to heaven or to hell, then by definition, the atonement is limited to those so predestined to heaven and any argument to the contrary is just semantics and really not practically relevant. The atonement's ultimate purpose is found solely in the intent and will of God. If God only intends the atonement to be for those He desires, then that is how it will be.

This presents some more difficult questions of course because this means on a very real level God's love is not universal or else there has to be some fine parsing of words and their meaning to explain how God's love is expressed in sending people to Hell; people who were so designated before they were created, not based upon the foreknowledge of God as to what they would do in the future, but upon the sole primary will of God of making them for that express irrevocable purpose. Usually the response to objections on this are along the theme that God is Sovereign. He can do as He wishes. Who are we to question His judgement? In the absence of that, then the approach can be to define love on different levels to explain that God really does love those he creates to send to hell, he just loves them differently.

I -Irresistable Grace

Irresistable grace is sometimes called effectual grace or efficacious grace. Another term associated with this (although not exclusive to Calvinism) is monergism which means God is the one sole agent in the process of Salvation. Irresistable grace is thus speaking about saving grace specifically. A person chosen by God for Salvation, according to this view, will not because they cannot refuse this gift. This is not however just a matter of coersion, to be fair, most Calvinists would not see it as a robotic response by a person not involved with the process, but would see the Holy Spirit changing a person's heart (regeneration which is before any action or decision on the part of the person being saved) to where they want to repent and believe and so their will is involved with it, that cooperation however is after the fact of what God and God alone has already done.

This is linked tightly to the "T", total depravity. Calvinism (again not uniquely or exclusively) sees Total depravity as meaning that man is just not capable of seeking God from their condition of spiritual death. It requires God and God alone to initiate the process in each individual to where they are even capable of desiring God in this manner. One of the primary scriptures that his is based upon is John 6:44. The key word in the passage is translated "draw" and Calvinists take it in this context (while by the way rejecting the same definition in other contexts) to mean that this is an irresistable calling or drawing and not an act of wooing or persuasion.

Calvin himself never used the term "Irresistable Grace" but he does promote the concept although not as clearly as those who have furthered his system have in coming up with the TULIP.

...by free adoption God makes those whom He wills to be His sons; the intrinsic cause of this is in Himself, for He is content with His own good pleasure. ((Calvin, Institutes 3.22.7)

When Calvinism is challenged on the need for evangelism in this model (which taken to an extreme would seem to indicate that there is no need for us to put out the Gospel message because God independently calls those who will be saved anyway) it usually rejects this claim by 2 primary means, the first being that obedience to other portions of Scripture would preclude. Even if they can't explain how or why the spreading of the message is important in the actual process of Salvation, God again for his own good purposes commands that it be done. Some too then differentiate between what is "outward call" or "inward call" . Everyone can experience the outward call or be exposed to it, but only the Holy Spirit within a person can accomplish the inward call that actual accomplishes salvation.

The whole scenario of a sinner's prayer where people come to Christ and accept his grace and salvation may feel to people that it is after this that an inward change takes place, but to the Calvinist is not in actuality what takes place. The regeneration or transformation from Spiritual Death to life takes place before the heart turns toward God otherwise they would not be capable of that turning in the first place.

This is really a key part of any form of Calvinism, 5 point or 4 point and I'd go so far as to say that if this is not embraced then in the narrow and even common use of the word "Calvinist" one wouldn't be a Calvinist without affirming this order of Salvation where regeneration precedes Faith and Repentance.

P - Perseverence

This is probably the least controversial of the TULIP and many non-Calvinists accept this in some form or another. Some however are confused and associate just this element with being Calvinist. That's not the case. Calvinism is a package deal in that regard and not picking which elements can be accepted or not (although as noted before the L is dropped by 4 point Calvinists).

Key passage for it for many is Rom 8:35-39. It should be noted too that there are many who describe themselves as Arminians who accept this element and it was not specifically addressed in the historical challenge of Arminianism associated with Dort. Wesleyans and Methodists later came with a more formal challenge against it based mostly on Heb 6.

Some too from a Calvinist perspective prefer the word "preservation" as opposed to "perseverence" because they think that the later can be implied to again rely upon human efforts. Calvinists see that God preserves those whom He has called and just as there was no human effort in coming to Christ, so too there is no Human effort. God holds those whom He calls again fully by His will based upon His own good pleasure.

Non-Calvinists often label perseverence under the label of "Eternal Security." The terms however are often confused or used concurrently.

So there it is as best as I can lay it out. Again this is a pretty general layout of the TULIP. There may be some quibbles between some of the finer points and there's places where Calvinists themselves vary on how certain elements are defined.

Spiritual death is literal. In no ways a metaphor. The natural fallen human is totally incapable of desiring God or even the things of God. A person cannot come to God unless God Himself plants the desire within such a person. There is no element of human faith or work making this transition that is causal. These are secondary results to the work that God and only God can do. This has to be understood or else the further steps outlined in the TULIP will make no sense.

Bart, correct me if I'm wrong here. I don't think there's much disagreement with this. I certainly don't disagree with this, as it is written here. Where my disagreement lies, is when Calvinism says man must be "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit, before he can come to God, or believe the gospel. I believe God certainly enables man to come to God, but I believe regeneration doesn't happen, until one believes the gospel. Is this a significant difference, like I believe it is? Or, am I making a mountain out of a molehill?

Rick, you're right. Many Christian Traditions would not disagree with the T, and I don't either. In fact of the TULIP, in general, Arminians agree more often than not with both the T and P. The major areas of difference are with the U, L and I. When Calvinists speak of a 5 point Calvinist vs a 4 point Calvinist the point that is dropped is the L. That's my understanding anyway. I'm wide open to correction or clarification from anyone who wants to chime in.

(Note above I've not made it an absolute and am just speaking of a general observation on my part. A pure Arminian would not agree with any of the TULIP. In practice however (although many Arminians do affirm the P but in that context it's more of a "Once Saved Always Saved" than the P as it's presented in Calvinism, in fact many evangelicals do not hold fully to either Calvinism or Armininism but have elements of both to varying degrees or seek to reconcile theory and practice by affirming one but qualifying it in some way.)

Corrective Statement. Someone has challenged me privately on some statements I've made with regard to Calvin's Institutes being the first Systematic Theology. I've double checked where I got that impression from and after having done a quick look I'm happy to correct and further qualify what I'm saying. There were other forms of Systematic Theologies done well before this. "Systematic Theology" goes to definition and I should have been more specific in what I was saying. Calvin's Institutes represents the First Protestant Systematic Theology and it is also the first coming from the tradition and approach of Scholasticism, which I'll reference more later in this process. I stand by my belief that there are qualities of Calvin's Institutes that draw more heavily upon the Greek Philosophical Training and Roman Law approach that Calvin was highly trained in prior to his addressing those methods toward the systematization of Scripture, but I should have been more specific and careful in how I stated it and I'm grateful for the correction.

Just to reassure, my purpose in this is not to win an argument, or to trash Calvinism. It's to give the reasons and foundations for the reasons I view it as I do and I'm more concerned that I am accurate and fair in my representations.

Ok, so I didn't really want to get into this, because this is Bart's thread. But since this has been a long-standing disagreement between him and me, I will add my small contribution here and then let him carry on. My interest is factual accuracy, as I know Bart's is too. I appreciate his hard work here, and his many years of study. It requires a great commitment to the truth, and a lot of intellectual patience and honesty to challenge oneself as Bart has done, so I don't wish to belittle any of that.

In our private communications about this issue we agreed that our common purpose is to be factually accurate as far as possible. In my opinion, that requires leaning on recognized experts in the field.

My sources are academic, and in most cases not available online. I know that it is a novel concept that we should not just cut and paste from websites, but such is the burden of serious students. There are many misconceptions here about the influences of Greek Philosophy on reformed theology, and I would encourage anyone seriously interested to go and research it for themselves. It will leave you richer in your understanding of modern church history and theology.

As the conclusions that are being made here rest upon these premises, we should look to see if the premises are valid.

Bart and others have said this, by way of premise and/or conclusion:

.... Neo Calvinism indeed isolates texts using the scholastic model prevalent during John Calvin’s day. Mr. Calvin was educated to become a Lawyer and thus his education would have been heavily influence by Greek philosophic logic models and scholastic reasoning. Also, that educational model was the norm for those days and time and the influence of these logic constructs linger on in Neo Calvinism.

BW

2. Calvinism stands apart from several deeply rooted tenets of Historical Christianity.
Agree – this is due to the mode of educational system of the 1500’s thru early 1800’s of that western scholastic model in how it constructs an argument from the position of Lawyer speak and argues from those positions, to win a case. Such model leaves or little or no room, for exploration of new evidence.

It also represents the first comprehensive Systematic Theology. By that, I mean that this was the first major attempt in Christian History to systematically go through the Bible and organize all of the themes to where the intent was to in a comprehensive manner determine what the Scriptures say collectively on any one theme and then attempt to present doctrinal positions from that exercise. In this manner, Calvin's approach was very consistent with his Legal and Philosophical training foundations before he approached this task.

This is one primary area where I think Calvinists either are in denial or honestly don't see that this underlying framework, undoubtedly influenced Calvin's system and the results that his approach generated.

You might take a look at one of the last posts I did tying Calvinism to Greek Philosophy and Determinism. How do you respond and incorporate that into the common claim of Calvinism that it is solely Biblically based and draws it's very methodology out of Scripture? Do you find, for example in the New Testament, a systematic and exhaustive handling of a particular topic where multiple verses are proof-texted to logical syllogisms to infer things that aren't clearly stated in any one portion of Scripture? How is the method employed in Calvinism and His Instsitutes for example, somehow more Biblical and indisputable than the prior 1500 years?

I think part of the reason for that is, as I've stated earlier, that Calvinism is rooted in the methodology of Law and Greek Philosophy.

The tie between Calvin's legal background and the citation from his Institutes which demonstrate him clearly at times drawing from Greek Philosophy indicates a tie.

What's different with Calvin in in the wake of the "rediscovery" of much of this is Calvin not only brought his influences, he adopted wholescale the methods of logic and systematic examination and applied them to Scripture in a manner that made these influences foundational and not just peripheral things that can be observed. Calvin's Institutes was in fact, the first systematic theology ever produced. I'm saying, you can't take a foundational method like that and apply it to Scripture that was written in a different context (with a primarily Eastern mindset) and not come out with some significant changes that are based on the methods used and not just Scripture. Yes we can qualify how Calvin's Divine Determinism carries with it some differences from the determinism of Greek Philosophy. When I look at it however, even while accepting those differences, the practical result is not all that different overall.

Calvin certainly would not have accepted the underlying values and results of Stoicism itself, but clearly he took the methodology and discipline of thought and applied it within the new context to a degree never done before with results that brought about a very different view of God and His working among His people than had existed before.

It's my assertion that Calvin's approach was so radically different historically and methodologically that it applied elements of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law that were not present in the original texts or in the minds and hearts of those who wrote the inspired texts themselves.

BW wrote:

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

So given all of the assertions above about the connection between Calvin and Greek Scholasticism, as well as some of the other statements that appear purely to cast a negative light, I suggest it is factually incorrect. For example, not only was Calvin by any stretch of the imagination not the first one to author a Systematic Theology, he wasn't even the first reformer to do it.

John F. Walvoord, past long-time president of the Dallas Theological Seminary, writes:

Protestant systematic theology had its origin in the early works of the Reformers. Among the first was the Loci Theologici of Melanchthon published in 1521. Zwingli produced his Commentarius de vera et falsa religione in 1525. William Farel brought out his theological manual in 1534 with the title, Summaire briefue declaration daucuns lieux fort necessaires a ung chascun Chrestien pour mettre sa confiance en Dieu et ayder son prochain. The most famous early work was that of John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, first published in 1536, and later entirely rewritten and enlarged through successive editions until the definitive edition of 1559.

Calvin was a staunch critic of Greek Philosophy, and specifically Scholasticism, as which we see above, is the opposite of what is being asserted here. he wrote several polemics against it, and saves some of his best criticism for the Stoics. I will quote from this work: The Unaccommodated Calvin, by Dr Richard Muller: http://www.amazon.com/Unaccommodated-Ca ... t_ep_dpt_2 The reviews include these statements: ""Muller's academic treatment places Calvin in his historical context and challenges various misconceptions and rabbit trails in 20th-century Calvin scholarship."--Christianity Today" and ""Muller's scholarship is so strong and his arguments so convincing that future Calvin scholars will only be able to ignore this book at their peril...essential reading for anyone wishing to study Calvin's theology and exegesis, both as a model of critical historical methodology and for it's illumination of Calvin's program and the development of his thought." Sixteenth Century Review". Dr. Muller used the source documents in the original languages, and his work on Calvin is highly regarded.

Dr Muller writes:

The problem of the relationship of Scholasticism to Calvin (and later to Calvinism as well), is complicated moreover, by the tendency of much twentieth century Protestant theology and historiography to view scholasticism as a highly speculative and rationalistic system of thought bound to Aristotelianism and to certain specific theological and philosophical conclusions characteristic of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the primary goal of which was to develop a synthesis of Christian theology and Greek philosophy.

.

Now, since I have sit here and manually type this, I will summarize the rest, but anyone is of course welcome to check the book themselves. That sounds exactly like what we are reading above, and Dr. Muller here goes on to say that to do so is wrong, since the only way to draw that any connection between Calvin and scholasticism is to view scholasticism not as the philosophical framework as is presupposed, but as a dialectical framework that did not prejudice theological conclusions.

So while the methods do influence content, Muller says, it does so "primarily in patterns of exposition and the identification of various sub-issues, as identified by the distinction, but it does not influence the final result of an argument" (italics Muller)

So we see that the premises being used here to analyze the work of Calvin may not be accurate, and as such, we should also consider the conclusions.

One of those conclusions, that because Calvin was supposedly influenced by Greek philosophy (a questionable assumption, according to Muller), is that the philosophy of determinism is what prompted Calvin to come up with his ideas around predestination.

Muller again (summarized and quoted): When talking about the early chapters of Romans where Paul introduces universal knowledge of the law, in the context of a sinful human race left without excuse, provides the basis for Calvin's expansion into the loci on sin and law. This shift in topic of Calvin in the discussion of sin versus the earlier discussion of law, which happened in the 1539 version of the Institutes, and was retained there in the 1559 (final) version, prompts Muller to write say that it dispels the twentieth century myth that Calvin initially had written about predestination in his doctrine about God, and moved it later into an a-posteriori position to avoid the problems of determinism, among others. Calvin simply never considered these 20th century problems and did not even write about predestination until before 1539, when he added the Pauline studies.

This shows that, contrary to the conclusions reached by others, among which McGrath and Bouwsma, Calvin did not in fact consider any form of Greek determinism when writing about predestination, or he would have done it prior to his 1539 revision, and as part of his doctrine on God. He did it only in response to questions he had received, and then only as a part of his study on the Pauline texts.

You might take a look at one of the last posts I did tying Calvinism to Greek Philosophy and Determinism. How do you respond and incorporate that into the common claim of Calvinism that it is solely Biblically based and draws it's very methodology out of Scripture? Do you find, for example in the New Testament, a systematic and exhaustive handling of a particular topic where multiple verses are proof-texted to logical syllogisms to infer things that aren't clearly stated in any one portion of Scripture? How is the method employed in Calvinism and His Instsitutes for example, somehow more Biblical and indisputable than the prior 1500 years?

As for the assertion above that what the reformers did was radically different to what had gone on in the previous 1500 years, I will let the reader decide for himself. My main source for this part is "Biblical Hermeneutics, Corley, Lemke & Lovejoy, 2002, Broadman and Holman Publishers", although I also used some other sources. We already saw that Origen used the same dialectical methods as the reformers, something that was also used by Augustine and Aquinas, and was revived by the reformers, in addition to also adapting some methodologies from Rome, having produced one of the first systematic theologies. This approach, as revived by the reformers, was grounded in a strong belief in the inspiration from the Spirit to interpret Scripture. The Alexandrian methodology influenced strongly by Philo and used by Origen found some of it source here. In Biblical Hermeneutics (Corley, Lemke & Lovejoy, 2002, p 88, chapter 2) it states: "The early Christian prophets and teachers explain the Old Testament by what may be called Charismatic Exegesis. ...they proceed that the meaning of the Old Testament is a "mystery" whose "interpretation" cannot be given by human reason but only by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 2:6-16). ... This view of their task does not preclude the New Testament writers from using logic or hermeneutical rules and methods. ... an acceptance of their interpretation of Scripture ... also will rest ultimately not on the proved superiority of their logical procedure or exegetical method, but rather on the conviction of their prophetic character and role". It is from here that the patristic era arises, and with it all subsequent theology. From this grew different schools of interpretation, such Alexandria and Antioch. Philo, a Jewish academic (30 BC to AD 40) bridged the gap between the NT writers and strongly influenced Alexandria, from which came Origen, Augustine (who did use some of Antioch), Aquinas, and was focused on a Spiritual understanding of Scripture. The reformers, inspired by the via moderna, used Augustine to develop an inductive, faith-based hermeneutic and recovered the method of exegetical theology. They inverted the scholastic formula that emphasized reason over faith, they believed in order to understand. (ibid, p112,). Both Luther and Calvin stated strongly that Biblical truth was inaccessible to the human mind unless illuminated by the Spirit, similar to the NT writers (from Luthers Sola Fide). "The Protestant reformation was unrelenting in its hermeneutical quest for clarity: to penetrate beyond human authority and to peel away layers of tradition in search of plain Scriptural meaning". (ibid, p113). From this, at the end of the 16th century, came the Protestant creeds, as a summery of their scholarship.

In response to BW assertion that Calvin's methods preclude new development, and discovery, the writers of this work write the opposite. The reformers liberated hermeneutics, or the reformation would not have been possible. Unfortunately, this liberation led to, and continues to lead to some questionable theologies, such as antinomianism.

In closing of this monster post, I cannot possibly reproduce all the evidence that stand in direct opposition to what is being asserted here, but hopefully this short example will show that the premises and conclusions are not nearly as clear-cut as we are being led to believe.

As Bart and BW said, and I want to reinforce, everyone should do their own research from scholarly sources, not blogs and cheer leaders either for or against Calvin. My intent is not to defend Calvin, as I don't believe he was infallible or complete in his theology. My intent is to make sure that we are factually sound as far as possible, and I am sure there are other sources that can disagree with these I have studied. It is up to the reader to make up his mind.

THanks August for following up on our conversations and I'm glad you posted.

August and I have had some discussions on this in the past and it is an area where we disagree. I don't question at all that John Calvin, despite his training in Stoicism, Greek Philosophy and Law did through the conversion of his focus from these disciplines toward Religion, first in the Catholic tradition for a short time and then in his adopting (although it might be more accurate to say that he was foundational in many regards in) Protestantism change his mind and values from those he previously studied and it could be argued with some validity that the depth of his familiarity with it adds power to his arguments.

I've not suggested that Calvin willfully or with intent sought to merge the overt values of these background disciplines, but have stated and hold more strongly that Calvin employed the methodologies present and along with those methodologies there is a subtle influence that is exerted regardless of the intent of the one using it, regardless of their best intentions. Methodologies carry with them inherent premises and implications that do not require the intent of the one using them to have influence.

As far as determinism is concerned, I think any reasonable person can look at Calvin's Institutes, Calvin's theology (and I'm quoting directly from the Institutes in an effort to draw from primary sources) and see the strong similarities that exist between Greek Determinism and the definitions and assumptions that Calvin applies to the use of the term in the Scriptures. The question that must be asked is if it appears that Calvin's definition and premises are drawn from the Scriptures themselves, mean that the use of the word in Scripture and the similarities in Greek Philosophy are there because not just the words but the concepts are similar and these in fact can be reconciled with all of Scripture read exegetically to draw those meanings out instead of reading other meanings in.

I'm content to let August's comments rest at this point, because I promised going into this and I meant it, that when it's clear where disagreement lies and that leads at least to clearer understanding even without agreement, then that is sufficient for me and I'll go on.

As the foundations are laid here by me (and I'm closing in on the next phase) which will be to address the goals I set out originally and enumerated it's my hope that whoever reads this, whether in real time or in the future if this should prove of any value as a resource, that people will do more than just look to find secondary sources that are known to reinforce an already accepted or assumed position. It's my hope that there will be enough here to encourage a person to read Calvin's Institutes or other more primary documents.

With the elements of the TULIP as they're laid out too, I hope people will step back for a moment and consider the implications of the acts attributed to God and ask if this resembles the God of the Bible (primarily) and the God of your experience (secondarily) and ask if the God you know and believe in is the God of double predestination, meaning that God creates people with the express purpose of damning them to hell for eternity based solely upon His "good will."

I'm glad and grateful, as I'm noting that there are people who call themselves "Calvinists" and reformed who shy away from some of these "extremes" (I think some of our resident Calvinists here may be among those but I'll leave that to them to declare or expound upon as they choose.) But I want it to be clear, that far from being extremes that these positions we are speaking of, are in fact the positions laid out by Calvin and today espoused and promoted by modern day High Calvinists and Neo-Calvinists such as Piper, Sproul, Boettner and others.

So, I will leave it here for now and continue with my planned progression without further address to August's comments. I may reflect back when I get a little further but I'll make that decision at that time based on how things are progressing.

Bear with me. I'm moving to the next transition after I finish getting the TULIP summary up.

Let me state here too, the definitions I'm putting up for the TULIP are vital. If those of you who have questions or assert positions based upon the TULIP disagree with how I'm presenting it, it would be good for you to put that up and clarify. My goal there is to present what Calvinism broadly believes and teaches based upon Calvin's direct writings where possible or to explain how they entered in post-Calvin (which is the case in a few instances, particularly the "L" which I'll tackle next.

Thanks August for your respect in addressing your issues. That's exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping would come and it is welcome.

August wrote:Ok, so I didn't really want to get into this, because this is Bart's thread. But since this has been a long-standing disagreement between him and me, I will add my small contribution here and then let him carry on. My interest is factual accuracy, as I know Bart's is too. I appreciate his hard work here, and his many years of study. It requires a great commitment to the truth, and a lot of intellectual patience and honesty to challenge oneself as Bart has done, so I don't wish to belittle any of that.

In our private communications about this issue we agreed that our common purpose is to be factually accurate as far as possible. In my opinion, that requires leaning on recognized experts in the field.

My sources are academic, and in most cases not available online. I know that it is a novel concept that we should not just cut and paste from websites, but such is the burden of serious students. There are many misconceptions here about the influences of Greek Philosophy on reformed theology, and I would encourage anyone seriously interested to go and research it for themselves. It will leave you richer in your understanding of modern church history and theology.

As the conclusions that are being made here rest upon these premises, we should look to see if the premises are valid.

Bart and others have said this, by way of premise and/or conclusion:

.... Neo Calvinism indeed isolates texts using the scholastic model prevalent during John Calvin’s day. Mr. Calvin was educated to become a Lawyer and thus his education would have been heavily influence by Greek philosophic logic models and scholastic reasoning. Also, that educational model was the norm for those days and time and the influence of these logic constructs linger on in Neo Calvinism.

BW

2. Calvinism stands apart from several deeply rooted tenets of Historical Christianity.
Agree – this is due to the mode of educational system of the 1500’s thru early 1800’s of that western scholastic model in how it constructs an argument from the position of Lawyer speak and argues from those positions, to win a case. Such model leaves or little or no room, for exploration of new evidence.

It also represents the first comprehensive Systematic Theology. By that, I mean that this was the first major attempt in Christian History to systematically go through the Bible and organize all of the themes to where the intent was to in a comprehensive manner determine what the Scriptures say collectively on any one theme and then attempt to present doctrinal positions from that exercise. In this manner, Calvin's approach was very consistent with his Legal and Philosophical training foundations before he approached this task.

This is one primary area where I think Calvinists either are in denial or honestly don't see that this underlying framework, undoubtedly influenced Calvin's system and the results that his approach generated.

You might take a look at one of the last posts I did tying Calvinism to Greek Philosophy and Determinism. How do you respond and incorporate that into the common claim of Calvinism that it is solely Biblically based and draws it's very methodology out of Scripture? Do you find, for example in the New Testament, a systematic and exhaustive handling of a particular topic where multiple verses are proof-texted to logical syllogisms to infer things that aren't clearly stated in any one portion of Scripture? How is the method employed in Calvinism and His Instsitutes for example, somehow more Biblical and indisputable than the prior 1500 years?

I think part of the reason for that is, as I've stated earlier, that Calvinism is rooted in the methodology of Law and Greek Philosophy.

The tie between Calvin's legal background and the citation from his Institutes which demonstrate him clearly at times drawing from Greek Philosophy indicates a tie.

What's different with Calvin in in the wake of the "rediscovery" of much of this is Calvin not only brought his influences, he adopted wholescale the methods of logic and systematic examination and applied them to Scripture in a manner that made these influences foundational and not just peripheral things that can be observed. Calvin's Institutes was in fact, the first systematic theology ever produced. I'm saying, you can't take a foundational method like that and apply it to Scripture that was written in a different context (with a primarily Eastern mindset) and not come out with some significant changes that are based on the methods used and not just Scripture. Yes we can qualify how Calvin's Divine Determinism carries with it some differences from the determinism of Greek Philosophy. When I look at it however, even while accepting those differences, the practical result is not all that different overall.

Calvin certainly would not have accepted the underlying values and results of Stoicism itself, but clearly he took the methodology and discipline of thought and applied it within the new context to a degree never done before with results that brought about a very different view of God and His working among His people than had existed before.

It's my assertion that Calvin's approach was so radically different historically and methodologically that it applied elements of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law that were not present in the original texts or in the minds and hearts of those who wrote the inspired texts themselves.

BW wrote:

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

So given all of the assertions above about the connection between Calvin and Greek Scholasticism, as well as some of the other statements that appear purely to cast a negative light, I suggest it is factually incorrect. For example, not only was Calvin by any stretch of the imagination not the first one to author a Systematic Theology, he wasn't even the first reformer to do it.

John F. Walvoord, past long-time president of the Dallas Theological Seminary, writes:

Protestant systematic theology had its origin in the early works of the Reformers. Among the first was the Loci Theologici of Melanchthon published in 1521. Zwingli produced his Commentarius de vera et falsa religione in 1525. William Farel brought out his theological manual in 1534 with the title, Summaire briefue declaration daucuns lieux fort necessaires a ung chascun Chrestien pour mettre sa confiance en Dieu et ayder son prochain. The most famous early work was that of John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, first published in 1536, and later entirely rewritten and enlarged through successive editions until the definitive edition of 1559.

Calvin was a staunch critic of Greek Philosophy, and specifically Scholasticism, as which we see above, is the opposite of what is being asserted here. he wrote several polemics against it, and saves some of his best criticism for the Stoics. I will quote from this work: The Unaccommodated Calvin, by Dr Richard Muller: http://www.amazon.com/Unaccommodated-Ca ... t_ep_dpt_2 The reviews include these statements: ""Muller's academic treatment places Calvin in his historical context and challenges various misconceptions and rabbit trails in 20th-century Calvin scholarship."--Christianity Today" and ""Muller's scholarship is so strong and his arguments so convincing that future Calvin scholars will only be able to ignore this book at their peril...essential reading for anyone wishing to study Calvin's theology and exegesis, both as a model of critical historical methodology and for it's illumination of Calvin's program and the development of his thought." Sixteenth Century Review". Dr. Muller used the source documents in the original languages, and his work on Calvin is highly regarded.

Dr Muller writes:

The problem of the relationship of Scholasticism to Calvin (and later to Calvinism as well), is complicated moreover, by the tendency of much twentieth century Protestant theology and historiography to view scholasticism as a highly speculative and rationalistic system of thought bound to Aristotelianism and to certain specific theological and philosophical conclusions characteristic of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the primary goal of which was to develop a synthesis of Christian theology and Greek philosophy.

.

Now, since I have sit here and manually type this, I will summarize the rest, but anyone is of course welcome to check the book themselves. That sounds exactly like what we are reading above, and Dr. Muller here goes on to say that to do so is wrong, since the only way to draw that any connection between Calvin and scholasticism is to view scholasticism not as the philosophical framework as is presupposed, but as a dialectical framework that did not prejudice theological conclusions.

So while the methods do influence content, Muller says, it does so "primarily in patterns of exposition and the identification of various sub-issues, as identified by the distinction, but it does not influence the final result of an argument" (italics Muller)

So we see that the premises being used here to analyze the work of Calvin may not be accurate, and as such, we should also consider the conclusions.

One of those conclusions, that because Calvin was supposedly influenced by Greek philosophy (a questionable assumption, according to Muller), is that the philosophy of determinism is what prompted Calvin to come up with his ideas around predestination.

Muller again (summarized and quoted): When talking about the early chapters of Romans where Paul introduces universal knowledge of the law, in the context of a sinful human race left without excuse, provides the basis for Calvin's expansion into the loci on sin and law. This shift in topic of Calvin in the discussion of sin versus the earlier discussion of law, which happened in the 1539 version of the Institutes, and was retained there in the 1559 (final) version, prompts Muller to write say that it dispels the twentieth century myth that Calvin initially had written about predestination in his doctrine about God, and moved it later into an a-posteriori position to avoid the problems of determinism, among others. Calvin simply never considered these 20th century problems and did not even write about predestination until before 1539, when he added the Pauline studies.

This shows that, contrary to the conclusions reached by others, among which McGrath and Bouwsma, Calvin did not in fact consider any form of Greek determinism when writing about predestination, or he would have done it prior to his 1539 revision, and as part of his doctrine on God. He did it only in response to questions he had received, and then only as a part of his study on the Pauline texts.

You might take a look at one of the last posts I did tying Calvinism to Greek Philosophy and Determinism. How do you respond and incorporate that into the common claim of Calvinism that it is solely Biblically based and draws it's very methodology out of Scripture? Do you find, for example in the New Testament, a systematic and exhaustive handling of a particular topic where multiple verses are proof-texted to logical syllogisms to infer things that aren't clearly stated in any one portion of Scripture? How is the method employed in Calvinism and His Instsitutes for example, somehow more Biblical and indisputable than the prior 1500 years?

As for the assertion above that what the reformers did was radically different to what had gone on in the previous 1500 years, I will let the reader decide for himself. My main source for this part is "Biblical Hermeneutics, Corley, Lemke & Lovejoy, 2002, Broadman and Holman Publishers", although I also used some other sources. We already saw that Origen used the same dialectical methods as the reformers, something that was also used by Augustine and Aquinas, and was revived by the reformers, in addition to also adapting some methodologies from Rome, having produced one of the first systematic theologies. This approach, as revived by the reformers, was grounded in a strong belief in the inspiration from the Spirit to interpret Scripture. The Alexandrian methodology influenced strongly by Philo and used by Origen found some of it source here. In Biblical Hermeneutics (Corley, Lemke & Lovejoy, 2002, p 88, chapter 2) it states: "The early Christian prophets and teachers explain the Old Testament by what may be called Charismatic Exegesis. ...they proceed that the meaning of the Old Testament is a "mystery" whose "interpretation" cannot be given by human reason but only by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 2:6-16). ... This view of their task does not preclude the New Testament writers from using logic or hermeneutical rules and methods. ... an acceptance of their interpretation of Scripture ... also will rest ultimately not on the proved superiority of their logical procedure or exegetical method, but rather on the conviction of their prophetic character and role". It is from here that the patristic era arises, and with it all subsequent theology. From this grew different schools of interpretation, such Alexandria and Antioch. Philo, a Jewish academic (30 BC to AD 40) bridged the gap between the NT writers and strongly influenced Alexandria, from which came Origen, Augustine (who did use some of Antioch), Aquinas, and was focused on a Spiritual understanding of Scripture. The reformers, inspired by the via moderna, used Augustine to develop an inductive, faith-based hermeneutic and recovered the method of exegetical theology. They inverted the scholastic formula that emphasized reason over faith, they believed in order to understand. (ibid, p112,). Both Luther and Calvin stated strongly that Biblical truth was inaccessible to the human mind unless illuminated by the Spirit, similar to the NT writers (from Luthers Sola Fide). "The Protestant reformation was unrelenting in its hermeneutical quest for clarity: to penetrate beyond human authority and to peel away layers of tradition in search of plain Scriptural meaning". (ibid, p113). From this, at the end of the 16th century, came the Protestant creeds, as a summery of their scholarship.

In response to BW assertion that Calvin's methods preclude new development, and discovery, the writers of this work write the opposite. The reformers liberated hermeneutics, or the reformation would not have been possible. Unfortunately, this liberation led to, and continues to lead to some questionable theologies, such as antinomianism.

In closing of this monster post, I cannot possibly reproduce all the evidence that stand in direct opposition to what is being asserted here, but hopefully this short example will show that the premises and conclusions are not nearly as clear-cut as we are being led to believe.

As Bart and BW said, and I want to reinforce, everyone should do their own research from scholarly sources, not blogs and cheer leaders either for or against Calvin. My intent is not to defend Calvin, as I don't believe he was infallible or complete in his theology. My intent is to make sure that we are factually sound as far as possible, and I am sure there are other sources that can disagree with these I have studied. It is up to the reader to make up his mind.

Thank you, August. It's nice to get some balance to this thread.

With the elements of the TULIP as they're laid out too, I hope people will step back for a moment and consider the implications of the acts attributed to God and ask if this resembles the God of the Bible (primarily) and the God of your experience (secondarily) and ask if the God you know and believe in is the God of double predestination, meaning that God creates people with the express purpose of damning them to hell for eternity based solely upon His "good will."

Bart, I think you must have read my mind. This is exactly why I'm having such a difficult time with this whole issue. Now, I'll admit that I'm not even really sure if "double predestination" is what Calvinism teaches, or just what some extreme Calvinists believe.

This site :http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/
seems to show that it is a mainstream Calvinist belief, by what they say here:

. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world

This is a real struggle for me, to be honest. I cannot get past this. For any Calvinists who don't believe in double predestination, how do you get past this? Or, am I looking at it wrong? Is it not really talking about double predestination?

RickD, Double predestination IS precisely what Calvinism espouses and teaches. I've quoted above to demonstrate directly from Calvin's Institutes that it is EXACTLY what Calvin teaches. Far from being extreme, it is what anyone who calls themselves a Calvinist is associating themselves with if not what they believe.

Now, as I've tried to take pains to do and it's why I spent so much time in this introduction, in practice, there are many people who call themselves Calvinist who mean really that they're reformed. A lot of people who identify themselves as Calvinists, when you push them will either tell you that they don't believe in double Predestination as I've laid it out here from Calvin's direct writing or they will go to extraordinary efforts to contort and redefine things to where they keep the language but somehow soften this element of the God that is presented.

I understand this. When I was in the reformed movement that is precisely what I did as well.

What I'm saying here, and I'm saying it as lovingly and accurately as can with a desire to be fair, is this is a mainstream and not an extreme element of Calvinism. If someone is going to identify themselves as a Calvinist it's something they should understand and own or, in my opinion they should identify with a term other than Calvinism.

I won't name names, but you can go back on our threads and you will find threads where the poster identifies themselves as Calvinist and they will say exactly this and they will communicate exactly what I'm saying here, that God does create people whom He has, by His own will, identified, and predestined specifically to spend eternity in Hell and that if you try to say otherwise, then you're not Calvinist. What I'm saying here too is, listen to them. They are right. They are not exagerating. They are not being extreme. They are being level and honest and what is more, while I disagree strongly with their position, I respect and applaud them for being honest and straightforward and willing to stand up for what they believe and lay it out there.

So I hope this is clear and people understand I'm not standing back trying to use an unfair debating technique to identify High Calvinists or Neo-Calvinists with the extremes of their movement or to call them "Hyper-Calvinists." Double-Predestination is not an extreme. It IS Calvinism and it is directly in the TULIP.

Canuckster1127 wrote:RickD, Double predestination IS precisely what Calvinism espouses and teaches. I've quoted above to demonstrate directly from Calvin's Institutes that it is EXACTLY what Calvin teaches. Far from being extreme, it is what anyone who calls themselves a Calvinist is associating themselves with if not what they believe.

Now, as I've tried to take pains to do and it's why I spent so much time in this introduction, in practice, there are many people who call themselves Calvinist who mean really that they're reformed. A lot of people who identify themselves as Calvinists, when you push them will either tell you that they don't believe in double Predestination as I've laid it out here from Calvin's direct writing or they will go to extraordinary efforts to contort and redefine things to where they keep the language but somehow soften this element of the God that is presented.

I understand this. When I was in the reformed movement that is precisely what I did as well.

What I'm saying here, and I'm saying it as lovingly and accurately as can with a desire to be fair, is this is a mainstream and not an extreme element of Calvinism. If someone is going to identify themselves as a Calvinist it's something they should understand and own or, in my opinion they should identify with a term other than Calvinism.

I won't name names, but you can go back on our threads and you will find threads where the poster identifies themselves as Calvinist and they will say exactly this and they will communicate exactly what I'm saying here, that God does create people whom He has, by His own will, identified, and predestined specifically to spend eternity in Hell and that if you try to say otherwise, then you're not Calvinist. What I'm saying here too is, listen to them. They are right. They are not exagerating. They are not being extreme. They are being level and honest and what is more, while I disagree strongly with their position, I respect and applaud them for being honest and straightforward and willing to stand up for what they believe and lay it out there.

So I hope this is clear and people understand I'm not standing back trying to use an unfair debating technique to identify High Calvinists or Neo-Calvinists with the extremes of their movement or to call them "Hyper-Calvinists." Double-Predestination is not an extreme. It IS Calvinism and it is directly in the TULIP.

I'm starting to understand a little better, now. Puritan Lad, has said that if one doesn't believe in double predestination, then one is not really a Calvinist. While I understand what he's saying, and it seems to be what you're saying, I just hear other people say that they don't believe in double predestination, but still call themselves Calvinists. And, I see from what you, and PL are saying, and also from the quote I posted from reformed.org, that if one claims to believe in TULIP, one seems to have to believe in double predestination. Can one still hold to Calvinism, without agreeing with TULIP? There are people who consider themselves 4 point Calvinists. Are they not really Calvinists, because they don't completely agree with TULIP?

Rick, It all goes to how you use the term "Calvinist."

For some, "Calvinist" is synonomous with "reformed." That's a broad use of the term. The narrow use of the term would for most people mean a full acceptance of the 5 points of TULIP with a full embrace of double-predestination. 4 point Calvinists obviously call themselves Calvinists while not owning the L. 5 point Calvinists look at this and say that without the L the entire system collapses and it can't work in that manner.

I'm not attempting to pigeonhole people, but to have this discussion there has to be agreement on what the terms mean or else as many have said, we end up speaking past one another.

To have this type of conversation it requires that we agree on definitions and in order to do that we have to define terms narrowly so we're accurate in what we're saying or not saying.

So can people call themselves Calvinists and not believe some of this or have some modifed positions? Absolutely. Many do. I'm not intending to tell other people what they believe. That would be presumptuous, arrogant and very unloving of me to do that. That's really not my desire. What I'm trying to do here though is show that High Calvinism or Neo-Calvinism is not being "Hyper-Calvinism" when it makes these statements.

Bart, Rick,

I ran into this the other day with my Pastor who is an Albert Mohler product. He introduced me as a modified Calvinists. I thought, that is a pretty interesting way to put it.

Canuckster1127 wrote:RickD, Double predestination IS precisely what Calvinism espouses and teaches. I've quoted above to demonstrate directly from Calvin's Institutes that it is EXACTLY what Calvin teaches. Far from being extreme, it is what anyone who calls themselves a Calvinist is associating themselves with if not what they believe.

Now, as I've tried to take pains to do and it's why I spent so much time in this introduction, in practice, there are many people who call themselves Calvinist who mean really that they're reformed. A lot of people who identify themselves as Calvinists, when you push them will either tell you that they don't believe in double Predestination as I've laid it out here from Calvin's direct writing or they will go to extraordinary efforts to contort and redefine things to where they keep the language but somehow soften this element of the God that is presented.

I understand this. When I was in the reformed movement that is precisely what I did as well.

What I'm saying here, and I'm saying it as lovingly and accurately as can with a desire to be fair, is this is a mainstream and not an extreme element of Calvinism. If someone is going to identify themselves as a Calvinist it's something they should understand and own or, in my opinion they should identify with a term other than Calvinism.

I won't name names, but you can go back on our threads and you will find threads where the poster identifies themselves as Calvinist and they will say exactly this and they will communicate exactly what I'm saying here, that God does create people whom He has, by His own will, identified, and predestined specifically to spend eternity in Hell and that if you try to say otherwise, then you're not Calvinist. What I'm saying here too is, listen to them. They are right. They are not exagerating. They are not being extreme. They are being level and honest and what is more, while I disagree strongly with their position, I respect and applaud them for being honest and straightforward and willing to stand up for what they believe and lay it out there.

So I hope this is clear and people understand I'm not standing back trying to use an unfair debating technique to identify High Calvinists or Neo-Calvinists with the extremes of their movement or to call them "Hyper-Calvinists." Double-Predestination is not an extreme. It IS Calvinism and it is directly in the TULIP.

Bart,

This is hardly a ‘Stop The Press’ moment. Double predestination is quite clear. You may be having difficulties understanding the difference between the positive-positive and positive-negative view of double predestination. Given the amount of time some of us have spent correcting this error over on the Wesley thread, it is somewhat mystifying that the error has appeared again. But we must soldier on in good faith.

We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment. In regard to the elect, we regard calling as the evidence of election, and justification as another symbol of its manifestation, until it is fully accomplished by the attainment of glory. But as the Lord seals his elect by calling and justification, so by excluding the reprobate either from the knowledge of his name or the sanctification of his Spirit, he by these marks in a manner discloses the judgment which awaits them.

Calvin, Institutes, 3.21.7 (my bold)

Calvin is clearly referring to the passing over of the reprobate.

At this point, it would be good if readers take the time and care to read this link:

http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredes ... proul.html

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.

In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives…

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God's justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all — in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.

So it is clear that God does not “create people whom He has, by His own will, identified, and predestined specifically to spend eternity in Hell”… That is a gross caricature. God predestines the reprobate to hell in light of the fall.

The Reformed Confessions (From the same link)

By a brief reconnaissance of Reformed confessions and by a brief roll-call of the theologians of the Reformed faith, we can readily see that double predestination has been consistently maintained along the lines of a positive-negative schema.

The Reformed Confession: 1536

Our salvation is from God, but from ourselves there is nothing but sin and damnation. (Art. 9)

French Confession of Faith: 1559

We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of his mercy; leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them his justice. (Art. XII)

The Belgic Confession of Faith: 1561

We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, MERCIFUL AND JUST: MERCIFUL, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without respect to their works: JUST, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves. (Art. XVI)

The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566

Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man's evil into good. . . . St. Augustine writes in his Enchiridion: "What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly." (Art. VIII)

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected . . . are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power. through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. III — Art. VI and VII)

So it is clear that God does not “create people whom He has, by His own will, identified, and predestined specifically to spend eternity in Hell”… That is a gross caricature. God predestines the reprobate to hell in light of the fall.

Does anyone else think this sounds like smuggling in middle knowledge?