Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Do Reformed writings explain the basis for naturalistic criteria to judge religion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Do Reformed writings explain the basis for naturalistic criteria to judge religion?

    Calvin's use of a skeptical, demystifying sense of naturalism to judge religion is rationalistically appealing. However, I would like to please ask if Reformed have explored and laid out the premises behind this method of interpretation? Let me please explain.

    1. Calvin used a standard of "reason" vs. "absurdity" to decide religious questions.

    This is not to deny the importance of the Bible for Calvin. Indeed, Calvin made the Bible his central literary focus. However, in judging the meaning of the Bible, Calvin relied on his sense of reason when issues arose over it. Killian McDonnell wrote in John Calvin, the Church, and The Eucharist about Calvin's use of reason to judge the Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist:
    Against [the Lutheran] Westphal, who had said that Calvin was so bound to reason as to be unable to grant to God other than a power proper to the order of nature, Calvin answered that his solution was also not without an element of the incredible: "A doctrine carrying many absurdities with it is not true. The doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ is involved in many absurdities; therefore it follows that it is not true..." (pp.207-208)

    "There is nothing more incredible than that things severed and removed from one another by the whole space between heaven and earth should not only be connected across such a great distance..." Though Calvin would not admit that he was measuring the divine by the human, he did insist that even in these mysteries reason and common sense had a role....
    Jung S. Rhee wrote in in his essay John Calvin's Understanding of Human Reason in His Institutes:
    In his doctoral dissertation published later entitled “John Calvin’s Teaching on Human Reason”, Leroy Nixon concluded his analytical study with the final evaluation that “Contrary to popular opinion, Calvin overemphasized the ability of human reason”, while he “underemphasized the limits of human reason.”[31] This also misses the point, for he did not define or distinguish what kind of reason Calvin was talking about. In my judgment, Calvin has neither over nor under emphasized human reason. Calvin distinguished human reason into two different kinds of reason: “reason of the flesh” and “reason of the redeemed”, “corrupted reason” and “restored reason”, or “carnal reason” and “right reason”. And he rejected the former to take the latter. According to the definition of reason given to the latter, Calvin is a perfect rationalist and his theology is a model of “rational theology”.

    ...
    In the four chapters respectively, I attempted to prove that.... (iii) Calvin demonstrated the corruption of human reason and convinced its perfect restoration to the original condition, which happens with the re-unity of reason and faith given by the Holy Spirit at the regeneration. (iv) Calvin established his theology according to his idea of “rational theology” by the full use of both natural and redeemed reason.
    ...
    Calvin understood the equity of the divine law in the Scripture and. that in the nature: “It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws.”(IV.xx.16)
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080908.../ST/Reason.htm

    2. Calvin emphasized a concept of the natural order.


    John Hesselink writes in Calvin's Concept of the Law about the importance of laws of laws in Calvin's system:
    In close conjunction with the law of nature and natural law, Calvin uses expressions such as: "the order of nature"; the "sense of nature" ; the "voice of nature itself"; "nature itself dictates; and simply by nature, or variant forms such as the law engraven or implanted on all by nature.
    ...
    That the concepts of natural law, the order of nature, conscience, common sense, etc. assume an important place in Calvin's theology is incontrovertible. .... As is commonly recognized, the majority of these expressions are of pagan, not Christian origin. The notions of law, nature, and conscience in particular were central to Stoic thought. ... Calvin's high evaluation of natural law and his acknowledgment of natural human achievement in several significant areas is not based on humanity's inherent goodness or worth but on God's grace.
    ...
    The order of nature also refers to the "orderliness or constancy of God's will within nature."
    ...
    [Calvin writes] "that law of nature which common sense declares to be inviolable," Comm Gen 1:23 (Co 23, 29). On the relationship of natural law, conscience, common sense, and experence cf. further Milner, op. cit., 33-35
    ...
    "Calvin appeals to the order of nature in many ways. He, of course, admits that God never binds himself or us to act entirely according to the law of nature. But he frequently points out that God's dealings with men throgh the Gospel conform to the natural order of things...." Wallace, op. cit., 143
    Kyle Dieleman writes in Exegetical Analysis of Calvin’s View of the Natural Order about this too:
    Clearly, in Calvin’s exegesis, the natural order and God’s providence are intimately tied so that through them both, people can come to a knowledge of God, the Creator and Sustainer. Overall, Calvin’s view of the natural order, as created, is extremely positive. Schreiner is absolutely correct that Calvin views the natural order, in its original state, as a theater for God’s glory.

    http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/...ntext=pro_rege
    3. Calvin repeatedly turned to a naturalistic sense of reason in order to judge questions.

    When Calvin wrote his commentary on Paul's story of the spiritual rock following the Israelites in the desert (1 Cor 10:3-4), Calvin's logic is that rocks cannot follow people, so Paul must be talking about a stream of water following the Israelites, not an actual rock. He also rejected the Lutheran/Eastern Orthodox view that this was about Christ as a "spiritual rock" actually following the Israelites. Here is where Calvin explains this in his commentary:
    That rock was Christ
    Some absurdly pervert these words of Paul, as if he had said, that Christ was the spiritual rock, and as if he were not speaking of that rock which was a visible sign, for we see that he is expressly treating of outward signs. The objection that they make -- that the rock is spoken of as spiritual, is a frivolous one, inasmuch as that epithet is applied to it simply that we may know that it was a token of a spiritual mystery. In the mean time, there is no doubt, that he compares our sacraments with the ancient ones. Their second objection is more foolish and more childish -- "How could a rock," say they, "that stood firm in its place, follow the Israelites?" -- as if it were not abundantly manifest, that by the word rock is meant the stream of water, which never ceased to accompany the people.
    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cal...nthians/10.htm
    Calvin's way of reaching this conclusion is materialistically appealing, but I think that if one admits the paranormal, then a rock could follow people.

    When judging the question of the Eucharistic bread, Calvin reasoned in his Institutes that Christ could not be in Eucharist bread if he was up in heaven.
    These men[Lutherans] teach that he is in every place, but without form. They say that it is unfair to subject a glorious body to the ordinary laws of nature. But this answer draws along with it the delirious dream of Servetus [burned by Swiss Reformed], which all pious minds justly abhor, that his body was absorbed by his divinity. I do not say that this is their opinion; but if it is considered one of the properties of a glorified body to fill all things in an invisible manner, it is plain that the corporeal substance is abolished, and no distinction is left between his Godhead and his human nature. Again, if the body of Christ is so multiform and diversified, that it appears in one place, and in another is invisible, where is there anything of the nature of body with its proper dimensions, and where is its unity?
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/inst...vi.xviii-p85.1
    I sympathize with this logic rationalistically. Under a late renaissance naturalistic concept of the material body, Christ's human body would be restricted within set dimensions and directly united, and therefore it wouldn't be separated by space in pieces of bread.

    However, if one were to think of Christ's body in supernatural terms as a spirit body that does not obey natural laws or normal materialistic concepts of the body, I don't see a problem of pure logic in proposing that it can be in multiple locations at once and can undergo changes in dimensions. Indeed, later in the Institutes, he denied that Christ was circumscribed:
    The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be such as neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses him in bread, nor circumscribes him in any way (this would obviously detract from his celestial glory); and it must, moreover, be such as neither divests him of his just dimensions, nor dissevers him by differences of place...
    To me, asserting that Christ is not "circumscribed" (limited) "in any way" due to his supernatural nature would seem to lead to the idea that he need not retain limited bodily dimensions. That is, while teaching that Christ is not circumscribed, Calvin still seems to limit him in a naturalistic sense by saying that Christ must remain within set dimensions and cannot be in multiple places simultaneously.

    In the passage below, Calvin denied at length in the Institutes that his proposal subjected Christ to the laws of nature, since he said that Christians' spirits were united with Christ's spirit supernaturally across the vastness between earth and heaven. However, when it comes to Christ's human body, Calvin specifies that it must be "confined in a certain space". This is in correspondence to Calvin's naturalistic concept of the material human body:
    They give out that we are so wedded to human reason, that we attribute nothing more to the power of God than the order of nature admits, and common sense dictates. From these wicked calumnies, I appeal to the doctrine which I have delivered,—a doctrine which makes it sufficiently clear that I by no means measure this mystery by the capacity of human reason, or subject it to the laws of nature. I ask, whether it is from physics we have learned that Christ feeds our souls from heaven with his flesh, just as our bodies are nourished by bread and wine? How has flesh this virtue of giving life to our souls? All will say, that it is not done naturally. Not more agreeable is it to human reason to hold that the flesh of Christ penetrates to us, so as to be our food. In short, every one who may have tasted our doctrine, will be carried away with admiration of the secret power of God.

    But these worthy zealots fabricate for themselves a miracle, and think that without it God himself and his power vanish away. I would again admonish the reader carefully to consider the nature of our doctrine, whether it depends on common apprehension, or whether, after having surmounted the world on the wings of faith, it rises to heaven. We say that Christ descends to us, as well by the external symbol as by his Spirit, that he may truly quicken our souls by the substance of his flesh and blood. He who feels not that in these few words are many miracles, is more than stupid; since nothing is more contrary to nature than to derive the spiritual and heavenly life of the soul from flesh, which received its origin from the earth, and was subjected to death, nothing more incredible than that things separated by the whole space between heaven and earth should, notwithstanding of the long distance, not only be connected, but united, so that souls receive aliment from the flesh of Christ.

    Let preposterous men, then, cease to assail us with the vile calumny, that we malignantly restrict the boundless power of God. They either foolishly err, or wickedly lie. The question here is not, What could God do? but, What has he been pleased to do?

    We affirm that he has done what pleased him, and it pleased him that Christ should be in all respects like his brethren, “yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). What is our flesh? Is it not that which consists of certain dimensions? is confined within a certain place? is touched and seen?

    And why, say they, may not God make the same flesh occupy several different places, so as not to be confined to any particular place, and so as to have neither measure nor species? Fool! why do you require the power of God to make a thing to be at the same time flesh and not flesh? It is just as if you were to insist on his making light to be at the same time light and darkness. He wills light to be light, darkness to be darkness, flesh to be flesh. True, when he so chooses, he will convert darkness into light, and light into darkness: but when you insist that there shall be no difference between light and darkness, what do you but pervert the order of the divine wisdom? Flesh must therefore be flesh, and spirit spirit; each under the law and condition on which God has created them. Now, the condition of flesh is, that it should have one certain place, its own dimensions, its own form. On that condition, Christ assumed the flesh, to which, as Augustine declares (Ep. ad Dardan.), he gave incorruption and glory, but without destroying its nature and reality.
    For Calvin, the body of Christ, since it's flesh, must be "seen", and thus he disagreed with the Lutherans and said that it could not be "invisible" in pieces of bread. I sympathize with this from a materialistic viewpoint. However, once I allow that Jesus' body could be conceived of in a supernatural way, I don't have a problem with the concept that it could be unseen. In Paul's writing to the Corinthians he proposed that the resurrected would have spirit bodies, and Calvin proposed something similar in his commentary on John 6. When Calvin read that believers must eat Jesus' flesh yet "the flesh profiteth nothing", Calvin proposed that this was possible because Jesus' flesh had become spirit. In this new supernatural state, I don't have a problem with the concept of Jesus being in bread at the level of pure logic . It's only in terms of a naturalistic scheme applied to Christ's body that it cannot be on earth in bread.

    To give a third example of Calvin's naturalistic sense of decisionmaking: he admits that human reason is not an absolute standard, but then to illustrate the absurdity of Christ literally being in Eucharistic bread, he asserts that "nothing can be more absurd" than for John to have literally seen the Holy Spirit descending on Christ:

    A doctrine carrying many absurdities with it is not true: the doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ is involved in many absurdities; therefore it follows that it is not true. The major they[Lutherans] deny to hold universally, because there are various species of absurdities, and in theology every thing is not to be held absurd which is repugnant to human reason. But whether or not those which we produce are of that description, let our readers judge from the following:
    ...

    They refuse to admit any trope, alleging, that there cannot be one in words so clear as, This is my body; as if there was not equal clearness in the words, On whom you shall see the Holy Spirit. Were we disposed to indulge in such empty garrulity, what might we not make of the term see, and the name of Spirit? If they say that the form of a dove was the Spirit, nothing can be more absurd.
    http://www.godrules.net/library/calv...calvin_b12.htm
    Elsewhere in his Letters, he had written:
    The Evangelist hesitates not to call a dove the Holy Spirit, evidently on the same ground on which the name of body is transferred to the bread. ...
    Whether types and figures are suitable to the Old Testament only, let the Holy Spirit answer for himself, who appeared twice in the form of a dove,...

    .... If from the words of Christ, This is my body, it is inferred, that the substantial body of Christ is received by the carnal mouth, it might with equal force be argued that the divine essence of the Spirit was seen by the carnal eye, because it was said, Upon whom ye shall see the Spirit of God descending. Hence it will follow, that the Spirit of God was transformed into a visible dove.
    http://www.godrules.net/library/calv...calvin_b12.htm
    I sympathize with Calvin in a rationalistic way: If the Spirit is immaterial, then in a formal materialistic sense of reality it seems a material eye would not see it.

    But if the Spirit is actually there as a dove, then in a supernatural scheme I don't know why purely as a matter of logic it would be absurd for a physical eye to see it, as it would be acceptable for an angel to make contact with a physical object. By comparison, when God was in a cloud or took the form of a cloud, I don't know why in a supernatural framework it would be absurd to propose that the Israelites' eyes beheld this cloud.

    Elsewhere Calvin repeatedly uses a naturalistic version of a "reason vs absurdity" standard to judge religion.

    • He categorically excluded that the exorcists of his time succeeded in casting out demons in his Institutes,
    • he wrote in his Treatise on Relics that keeping holy peoples' clothes and bones was always "superstition" even when they weren't idolatry, and
    • he banned pilgrimages to regional healing waters supposedly sanctified by a saint.

    In these cases as a matter of materialism, I sympathize, and would not see objects themselves as retaining miraculous powers. But as a matter of the supernatural and paranormal, it does not seem to be a problem of logic for them to do so.

    As to the title of the Messianic Psalm 22 referring to the "morning star", he found no special meaning in his commentary on it, concluding that the previous interpreters had needlessly perplexed themselves over it. I agree that at face value there is no explicit reference to Christ. However, in a paranormal or supernatural scheme, David as a prophet could make a mystical connection in his Psalm to Christ who is called the "morning star" in Revelation and 2 Peter. It's only when I restrict or heavily lean myself to a face value reading that downplays the likelihood of a cryptic supernatural connection that I reach the same conclusion that the Psalm title lacks a special meaning.

    When Calvin opposed the concept of a globe in a heliocentric system, he did not focus on scriptural justifications, but rather again his standards of reason vs. absurdity.

    Plato had written in Timmaeus:
    Wherefore he made the world in the form of a globe, round as from a lathe, having its extremes in every direction equidistant from the centre, the most perfect and the most like itself of all figures; for he considered that the like is infinitely fairer than the unlike.


    Calvin wrote in Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book I, 5:11):
    How lavishly in this respect have the whole body of philosophers betrayed their stupidity and want of sense? To say nothing of the others whose absurdities are of a still grosser description, how completely does Plato, the soberest and most religious of them all, lose himself in his round globe?
    Commenting on Galileo and Copernicus, Calvin wrote of:
    those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and prevent the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil posses them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence. When they are told: “That is hot,” they will reply: “No, it is plainly cold.” When they are shown an object that is black, they will say that it is white, or vice versa. Just like the man who said that snow is black; for although it is perceived and known by all to be white, yet he clearly wished to contradict the fact. And so it is that they are madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses.
    What is noteworthy is:
    1. Calvin's judgment relied on reason rather than scripture to determine reality in these passages.
    2. Calvin's emphasis on the "natural order"
    3. Calvin's sense of reason v. "imprudence" relied on what was directly "perceived" by the senses: black vs. white, or in this case watching the sun rise over the earth.
    4. The arbitrary aspect of his reasoning demands that we explore the premises behind Calvin's system. Just as here he said that heliocentricism was like calling black "white", he said that those who considered Jesus' flesh capable of being in Eucharist bread were like those who suggested "there shall be no difference between light and darkness". In both cases Calvin was using sensory, materialistic comparisons and perceptions of nature and reality.


    So this all leads back to the main question: Have Reformed writers explored the basis for using skeptical, materialistic, naturalistic criteria to demystify and judge religion based on a sense of reality as directly perceived by the senses?
    Last edited by rakovsky; 04-10-2016, 12:11 AM.

  • #2
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #3
      Edited by a Moderator

      Moderated By: lilpixieofterror

      Theology 201 is for theist members only.

      ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
      Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

      Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 04-12-2016, 06:23 PM. Reason: Non-Theist in Theist only area

      Comment


      • #4
        How are Calvinists the most rational? They essentially deny Free Will. I even had one self-identified Calvinist tell me a few days ago that Free will does not exist and is a wrong teaching.

        Wouldn't the Quakers whom they persecuted and who do not practice rituals be less religious, which is what I think you mean by more "rational".

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rakovsky View Post
          How are Calvinists the most rational? They essentially deny Free Will. I even had one self-identified Calvinist tell me a few days ago that Free will does not exist and is a wrong teaching.

          Wouldn't the Quakers whom they persecuted and who do not practice rituals be less religious, which is what I think you mean by more "rational".
          Edited by a Moderator
          Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 04-12-2016, 07:14 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Edited by a Moderator
            Quakers propose that they have inspiration by the Holy Spirit at their meetings so that in the course of the Service, to put it in churchly terms, the spirit moves them to make what mainstream Christians might call a "sermon". It is kind of like a prophecy that may not necessarily be predictive of the future but rather just divine insight and teachings.

            Such a practice though is not necessarily part of Calvinist services.

            But then again Calvin had the weird habit of asserting things like the Calvinist ministers being the "mouth of God".
            Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 04-12-2016, 06:24 PM.

            Comment

            widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
            Working...
            X