Do any Reformed writings explain the basis for naturalistic reasoning to reach religious teachings?

[rakovsky]

Something that I find partly appealing in Calvinism is - and I am not sure how to put this - a naturalistic, demystifying, skeptical, materialistic use of reasoning to judge religious claims. This is not to deny the centrality of the Bible as a religious text in Calvinism, but to note this use of naturalistic reasoning in judging religion, including the Bible's meaning. My question here is whether Reformed writers have laid out the premises or justifications for the skeptical, naturalistic aspect of their reasoning?

Please allow me to explain.

I. Reason plays a major role in Calvin's thinking and approach.

Jung S. Rhee writes in John Calvin's Understanding of Human Reason in His Institutes::

An inquiry has been made about why the Reformed theology tends to be rationalistic, scholastic, and philosophical.
...

In his article “Calvin’s Theological Method and the Ambiguity in His Theology”, Leith contended that Calvin’s theological methodology was formally biblicism but really rationalism.[11] Calvin’s “implicit confidence in the competence of reason to theologize on the basis of’ the biblical materials” was the crucial factor in his theology. “In the second book of the Institutes Calvin left no doubt about the sinful corruption of reason, and everywhere he rejected reason as an avowed source of theology. However, reason did become a source of his theology through speculation about and organization of the biblical materials. Calvin betrays little doubt as to the full competence of reason in the systematization and rational elaboration of the biblical materials... On the basis of the presupposition that the Bible supplies infallible material for theology and that reason is competent to manipulate and theologize about those materials, Calvin was convinced that he
possessed the truth.”[12] In another words, “While he avows the greatest loyalty to Scripture, he actually goes beyond Scripture as a result of an almost irresistible tendency to extrapolate rationally the scriptural data.”[13] According to Leith, this rationalistic tendency has dominated later Calvinism, though Calvin himself was relatively successful to overcome the continuing threat of rationalism.
...

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)

II. The "natural order" was a major concept to Calvin.

John Hesselink writes in Calvin's Concept of the Law:

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."

Peter Wyatt writes in Jesus Christ and Creation in the Theology of John Calvin:

With Calvin, grace is primarily redemptive and meets the need of sinful creatures for regeneration. However, it does not do so by overturning the natural order or subverting the gifts of the divine Spirit... Because the order of nature arises from the ordinatio dei and is maintained by God, the order is firm and trustworthy... The order of nature is divinely mandated and as such is to be regarded as tacitly legislating.

III. In many cases, Calvin uses a skeptical sense of naturalism in employing reason.

One example is how Calvin judged the verse in 1 Cor 10 wherein Paul writes that Christ was a spiritual rock that followed the Israelites. Calvin concluded that since rocks don't follow people, the word "rock" must mean "stream of water". He disagreed with the Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox reading that "spiritual rock" was a name for Christ himself actually directly accompanying the Israelites. He wrote 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/calvin/1_corinthians/10.htm

From a materialistic, naturalistic standpoint, I find his reasoning appealing. In nature, rocks don't follow people, so it is easier to think of a stream of water following people. On the other hand, if I put myself in a supernatural mindset and see Paul as talking about a rock that looked like a normal rock, I don't see any purely logical obstacle to thinking that there was an actual material rock following the Israelites. So it seems that he is using a naturalistic method.

In a second example, when Calvin considered whether exorcists of his day were able to cast out demons and could show any proofs or specimens to prove their work, he wrote:

Who ever heard of those fictitious exorcists having given one specimen of their profession? It is pretended that power has been given them to lay their hands on energumens, catechumens, and demoniacs, but they cannot persuade demons that they are endued with such power, not only because demons do not submit to their orders, but even command themselves. Scarcely will you find one in ten who is not possessed by a
wicked spirit. All, then, which they babble about their paltry orders is a compound of ignorant and stupid falsehoods.

www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xx.html

As a matter of materialism, I sympathize with him. Demons and demonic possession can be hard to prove or show in the realm of natural observation. On the other hand, it seems to me that were I to put myself in a supernatural mindset and accept the role of such beings in human affairs, then I wouldn't reject across the board that Christian exorcists occasionally succeeded in their work in the last 15 centuries or so.

 

[rakovsky]

To give a third example, I read that Calvin forbade Genevans from make their traditional pilgrimages to regional water that by legend a saint had made holy. I don't remember which water this was, but I found a similar story about Zwingli.

fountain in Einsedeln from the spring

John Broome wrote in his book Zwingli & Calvin:

In 1516 Zwingli was offered the post of Preacher at the monastery of Einsiedeln. This contained one of the most famous shrines in Switzerland to which thousands came every year on pilgrimage to obtain the indulgences secured by a visit to the statue of the Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Einsedeln, said to perform miracles. The monastery was near lake Zurich and the Abbot was strangely a man set on removing
superstition from his Abbey. Zwingli was in some doubt whether to accept the offer as he could see himself being shut away in this mountain retreat... But on consideration he realized that in such a place he could spread the truth to the thousands of pilgrims who came to Einsedeln each year. So he accepted the offer and from the shrine of Our Lady of Einsedeln pilgrims heard the Gospel, were warned of the futility of coming to the statue of Our Lady for indulgences .... the shrine of Our Lady of Einsedeln became a centre for the propagation of the Reformed Truth. ... The Pope did not interfere. Zwingli's Bishop was only too well aware what was going on....

Here I sympathize with Zwingli and Calvin and am skeptical that a saint blessed the waters in either case, especially such that they would still be miraculous decades later. It's also ruled out by a strong or materialistic view of the natural order. On the other hand, working within strong premises of the supernatural, I am not sure what would rule it out or stop it from happening. If saints could be given supernatural blessings to imbue objects with holiness, then purely as a matter of logic, I am not sure what my objection could be, other than to go back to arguing for materialistic, naturalistic senses of the natural "order"


In a fourth case, Calvin commented that the reference to the morning star in the title of Psalm 22 was of "small importance" and that preceding interpreters had "needlessly perplexed" themselves over it. The Psalm begins: "To the chief musician. On the doe/star/strength of the morning. A psalm of David." Calvin commented:

This inscription is obscure; but interpreters have needlessly perplexed themselves in seeking after I know not what sublime mystery in a matter of small importance. Some are of opinion that the word tlya, ayeleth, means the morning star; others that it denotes strength but it is more correctly rendered hind. As it is evident, from the testimony of the apostles, that this psalm is a prophecy concerning Christ, the ancient interpreters thought that Christ would not be sufficiently dignified and honored unless, putting a mystical or allegorical sense upon the word hind, they viewed it as pointing out the various things which are included in a sacrifice. Those, also, who prefer translating the original words, have endeavored to do the same thing. But as I find no solidity in these subtleties, it will be better to take that view of the title which is more simple and natural. I think it highly probable that it was the beginning of some common song; nor do I see how the inscription bears any relation to the subject-matter of the psalm.
Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 8: Psalms, Part I, tr. by John King, [1847]

Looking at it from the perspective of a skeptic who tries to take a simple, "natural" reading, this title in itself does not have any explicit connection to Christ. To read the title by itself in this way, rather than "perplexing" oneself over mystical cryptic meanings, essentially "demystifies" it. David never says something so explicit as "the Messiah is the 'morning star'".

It's true though that Psalm 22 appears to be a Messianic Psalm, talking about the spiritual value of the narrator for future generations. Therefore, as a matter of pure logic that takes into consideration the mystical, supernatural, or cryptic nature of this Psalm, I don't have a problem with the proposal that the "morning star" refers to the Messiah in a cryptic way.

Calvin of course did not say that no Psalm was about Jesus. Some things like Psalm 22 were connected by Jesus or the Evangelists themselves to be about the Christ. But the NT did not specify whether Psalm 22's title was Messianic. This silence leaves open the option to take a cryptic, mystical view, or what Calvin calls a "simple, natural" view. And this in turn raises the question of why the latter method is better when it comes to concepts in the Psalms that are not explicitly Messianic.

In a fifth case, Calvin said that John the Baptist did not actually "see" the Holy Spirit descending with his eyes, anymore than communion food "is" Jesus' "body". He writes in his Letters:

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.

They [Lutherans] 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/calvin/142calvin_b12.htm

When I clearly separate the realm of the material from immaterial, then I sympathize with Calvin's conclusion. The Holy Spirit, being a spirit, would not be material, and hence invisible to the eye. Thus, from a "simple, natural" or materialistic standpoint, I find Calvin's view very appealing.

However, when I take a paranormal, supernatural view, I don't have a problem thinking that John the Baptist saw Jesus having the Spirit on him with his own eyes. That is, if the Holy Spirit was actually there in that place descending on John, and it appeared in the form of a dove to John, and John's physical brain was impressed with this fact, I don't have a problem of pure logic with thinking that John's eyes were imposed with a vision of the spirit either. In a supernatural, paranormal scheme, I don't have a problem with the Spirit giving off or reflecting light such that physical eyes could see it if God allowed those eyes to see the vision. For that matter, if a divine vision or manifestation of God occurred at some point, I don't have a problem logically in a paranormal scheme to imagine that a camera could or could not be able to record it. And if a camera could, then even more so it seems a blessed human eye could.

So whether I go with Calvin's view or a paranormal view seems to lead to the question of premises - why is the materialistic or naturalistic scheme so strong that to propose John's eyes seeing the vision would be "more absurd" than anything?

In addition, there are several other issues where Calvin or other major Reformed writers took naturalistic views on religious and scientific questions. On one hand, I find their approach rationalistically appealing, but on the other hand I could reach different conclusions if I allowed for the paranormal and supernatural. So I wish to please ask if Reformed writers have ever produced literature on a basis for the naturalistic or materialistic side of their reasoning.

 

[TCassidy]

I feel as if I just read a Russian novel. Or three. Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Gogal at the same time?

 

[Rob_BW]

I feel as if I just read a Russian novel. Or three. Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Gogal at the same time?

For a wall of text, though, it was formatted nicely. And had neat pictures.

I can't wait to read some answers.

 

[SovereignGrace]

If I am understanding the OP's title correctly, forget about Reformed writers, as Jesus did this Himself when He spoke with Nicodemus.

Jesus first told Nicodemus "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."[John 3:3] Nicodemus did not understand what Jesus was expressing to him as he said, "“How can someone be born when they are old?”Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”[John 3:4] Jesus was using the wind as an example of how the Spirit moves freely to wherever He pleases. Jesus then went on to say "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[John 3:5-8] Still, Nicodemus did not grasp what Jesus was conveying because he said, “How can this be?”[John 3:9] Jesus then went on to lambaste him by saying, "You are Israel’s teacher, and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?[John 3:10-12]

Then go to Ezekiel 37 and you will see an example of how God resurrects souls from death unto life. As the bible in the chapter also uses the wind as an example of how the Spirit operates upon those who are dead in transgressions and sins. Then go to John 11 and see how Jesus brings Lazarus back to life by just saying "Lazarus come forth." Then go to Luke 7 and read of how Jesus brought a widow's son back to life by just touching his coffin.

God quickens ppl to life via His Spirit, and He moves wherever He pleases to and asks not anyone's permission.

What I am driving at is that Jesus used the wind as an example of how God operates upon the unregenerate. He uses natural examples to show how He does what He does. Those other examples I posted also us natural means to display supernatural interaction betwixt God and His ppl.

 

[rakovsky]

I feel as if I just read a Russian novel. Or three. Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Gogal at the same time?

Thanks for your compliment!

 

[TCassidy]

Thanks for your compliment!

Another great Russian author! Well done rakovsky!

 

[rakovsky]

For a wall of text, though, it was formatted nicely. And had neat pictures.

I can't wait to read some answers.

Thanks, Rob!

Let me illustrate better the dilemma.

I. The Rock issue

Here is a rock moving with supernatural power from Luke Skywalker using the Force:

Here is a rock split in the Saudi desert that some Christians claim is the rock referred to in Genesis:

On this website, you can read more about the claim that this site is where the story in Genesis was described as happening: http://bible7evidence.blogspot.com/2014/08/mount-sinai-ron-wyatt.html
Personally, my guess is that the Genesis story is based on or refers to this location, but I actually don't have a strong opinion on it.

Calvin certainly never visited or heard of this particular location as it exists outside of the Bible. Simply faced with a strict dilemma over whether a verse saying that a "rock" followed the Israelites meant that:
(A) a solid metallic rock moved with them, or
(B) the word rock means "stream of water" ,

I would only pick B if I relied so strongly on a naturalistic understanding of events over a supernatural one that I had to go against what I see as a normal reading of the text to pick would be incorrect as a manner of normal speech. In normal speech "rock" practically cannot mean "stream of water", unless there is some extreme exception made.

II. The Issue of Exorcisms

Here is a photo of a photoshopped or artificial scene of an exorcism:

Here is a photo of a real catholic exorcism:

Here is a photo of Jim Carrie acting like a mental patient at a mental hospital:

A similar dilemma of supernatural vs. the natural arises. Either:
(A) Christians cast out demons from Demoniacs in 300-1550 AD, or
(B) Christians in that same time period could not cast out demons because they lacked the power to do so or because demons are not real.

If I were to accept the supernatural, the paranormal, and God's willingness to answer prayer on occasion from sincere Christians about their needs, I have no problem purely of logic with picking (A). It seems perfectly logical to think that God occasionally answered prayers to fight demons if they existed and were attacking people. It is quite hard to understand why God would never accept sincere requests to cast out demons if demons were real beings.
If however I accept the a naturalistic frame of reference, I could easily understand Calvin's conclusion that the claims about Catholic exorcists were "ignorant and stupid falsehoods." I could conclude like the Reformed writer J. Mede that demoniacs in the Bible were simply lunatics and mad men.

Similar dilemmas exist with the three other cases I mentioned in my opening message.
So this leads to the question of whether Reformed writers explained the premise of why a naturalistic reading of the Bible or in judging religion is as a rule strongly preferable to a supernatural one.

 

[rakovsky]

Thanks for writing back, Sovereign Grace!

I understand your answer, and I am sorry I didn't ask the question in the opening message better. You are quite right that Jesus occasionally used analogies from nature to talk about religion. The blowing wind is a good example, and so is the mustard seed.

What I really meant to ask was whether Reformed writers have explained the naturalistic, skeptical, materialistic, demystifying aspect of Calvin's "Reason" vs. "Absurdity" test to judge both religion and the nature of reality.

When he disagreed with Lutherans and Catholics over whether a natural or a miraculous supernatural event occurred, Calvin had a strong pattern of picking a naturalistic solution based on a concept of the "natural order" as directly perceived by the senses. He used this same sensory-based perception of reality and "Reason" in judging scientific claims, as when he said that it was "perceived by all" that the sun went around the earth and not the other way around. (http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/j...rnicus-and-heliocentrism#sthash.TosdEfJM.dpuf)

I am not sure how I could ask the question in a better way in the Opening Post, but I tried to give some examples to illustrate what I meant by Calvin using naturalistic criteria for a "Reason vs. absurdity" standard to judge religion. In the first case about the moving rock, he asks rhetorically:

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.

On one hand he calls the idea of rock = stream of water "abundantly manifest" , because he rules out that the rock was moving when Paul says that a spiritual rock was following the Israelites.


You brought up a sixth great example in Ezekiel 37 of Calvin's naturalistic answers to a natural vs. supernatural dilemma, besides the five I already listed in my OP, when you write:

Then go to Ezekiel 37 and you will see an example of how God resurrects souls from death unto life. As the bible in the chapter also uses the wind as an example of how the Spirit operates upon those who are dead in transgressions and sins.

Ezekiel and the Dry Bones

Reformed scholars say that Calvin's opinion was that this chapter was not actually about God supernaturally, miraculously resurrecting physically dead people from death to life.

Reformed theologian William Young explains this in John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: Historical and Hermeneutical Studies in John Calvin's sermons inédits, especially on Ezek. 36-48:

Unlike many earlier exegetes he[Calvin] studiously avoids apocalyptic interpretations of 37–48.

The Babylonian exile provides the background of the visions, while Calvin extends the literal sense to include the period until the Incarnation. When application is added to exegesis, Calvin could write, "The soul of a vision is the doctrine itself from whence faith is born." (Commentary on Ex 33:19, as quoted on 108.) Doctrine includes the knowledge of God in revelation. Calvin's view of visionary revelation accounts for the method of preaching in lectio continua (exposition of the book, verse by verse).

The third part of the book contains a splendid analysis of Calvin's treatment of Ezekiel 37–48 introduced by a brief exposition of chapter 36. The vision of the valley of dry bones is not viewed as a prophecy of the resurrection, but as a depiction of the captivity and restoration of Israel with a lesson of hope for the future of the church. The same line of exposition applies to the symbolic act of uniting the two sticks.

Journal: Renaissance Quarterly
Volume 58, Number 1, Spring 2005
pp. 274-275
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/235034

E. A. De Boer, professor of the Theological University of the Reformed Churches, writes the same thing in his book John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: Historical and Hermeneutical Studies :

Before Calvin started his series of sermons and thus his first thorough exposition of Ezekiel, he already had a clear grasp of the meaning of Chapter 37. Not the future resurrection of the dead, but the restitution or restoriation of Israel is promised and pictured. calvin's commentary on Acts reflects the same awareness. In the first volume of 1552 he commented on a resurrection miracle "When Ezekiel represents the liberation of the people under the figure of a resurrection he says "O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord (Ezek 37:4)... some very pointed statements are made on the vision as such. "This vision is a kind of archetype of the resurrection". And "the prophjecy is a vivd and as it were a true to life vision".

https://books.google.com/books?id=RR0_7RuCXhgC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq="Ezekiel+37"++calvin+commentary&source=bl&ots=IsCZQ-ouhb&sig=vsYxNo-dvvv9GixewLS7UOIPzzg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj3638oIfMAhUCaD4KHfJxDQAQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q="Ezekiel 37" calvin commentary&f=false

Now perhaps both these theologians have misrepresented Calvin, since Calvin wrote about Ezekiel 37 "This vision is a kind of archetype of the resurrection". Maybe by archetype Calvin thought that it predicted the resurrection. Or maybe by archetype he just meant that it was a picture of it, not actually a prediction that the resurrection would happen, any more than a Biblical picture of Leviathan in the ocean means that there actually is an animal called Leviathan.

But regardless, it means that the two Reformed theologians are promoting a reading of Ezekiel 37 that is not supernatural. And this goes back to the dilemma of why one should prefer a naturalistic reading to a supernatural one.

If I take a skeptical, materialistic view, I find Calvin's interpretation appealing. It's true that the context in other passages is about Israel's restoration.

However, if I take a supernatural view of the Bible and of the world, I have no problem of logic thinking like you did that Ezekiel was talking about the future resurrection of the dead. It's true that there can be a sense of Israel in the context of the surrounding passages, but that's not surprising even if the passage is about the resurrection. After all, Ezekiel would certainly have a major focus on whether Israel's population was resurrected if he described the resurrection at an apocalyptic, Messianic moment in the future. Further, Ezekiel is so detailed in describing the physical process of resurrection, that it sounds like he is talking about physical resurrection. At least such a viewpoint is perfectly reasonable if we accept supernatural premises.

And this reflects the issue about a supernatural vs. naturalistic set of premises that I was trying to ask about in my opening post. i am looking to see if reformed writers have laid out why we should prefer to use a naturalistic perspective in judging religion based on a test of "reason" vs. "absurdity".

 

[Greektim]

Have you read anything by Cornelius Van Til?

 

[rakovsky]

Have you read anything by Cornelius Van Til?

Thanks for stopping in, Greektim!

Van Til came up because I read his section on Calvin's Epistemology. Van Til had written in A Survey Of Christian Epistemology (Volume 2 of the series In Defense of Biblical Christianity by Presbyterian And Reformed Publishing Co): "It remains now to observe that Calvinism has been more truly theistic than either Lutheranism or Arminianism because it, better than they, has rid itself of the last vestiges of human independence or autonomy."

But Van Til did not really get into whether the Epistemology (philosophy of acquiring knowledge) of Calvin had a major materialistic aspect.

In contrast, Kenneth Keathley, of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, disagrees with Determinism (as opposed to free will) and says that it is essentially materialist in his book Salvation and Sovereignty:

Determinism seems to be open to a number of criticisms. First, determinism is simplistic. ... Second, determinism is mechanistic. ... If everything is "cause and effect", then the causal chain goes back to God. Not only does that make our decisions illusory but, as we have seen, it also makes God the author of sin.

Third, determinism is materialistic. The strongest advocates of determinism are often not Calvinists but atheists. Historically, the most ardent proponents of compatibilism have been skeptics such as Thomas Hobbes, David Hume.... Calvinists need to realize that their historical allies have been Darwinists. One of the most important reasons for affirming the reality of genuine human freedom is that it provides a powerful moral response to materialistic atheism. Almost all non-Christian philosophers are determinists who deny human freedom in a libertarian sense. ...NonChristian philosophers generally accept causal determinism instead of agent causation because determinism can be explained in purely physical terms. Enlightenment philosophers argued for LaPlace's Demon... Early determinists held to mechanical determinism while recent determinists argue for biological determinism.

At this point theological determinists often protest that this criticism amounts to guilt by association... Yet the logic of causal determinism is a stubborn thing. If God causes all things, then he does so either directly or by secondary causation. If he does so directly, then God is the sole cause of all events and secondary causation is an illusion This position, called occasionalism, was embraced by [Reformed leader] Edwards... [In occasionalism] it appears that the characters are causing the actions, but this is an illusion occurring only in the observer's mind... but few Calvinists followed [Edwards on this].

So if God is not the primary cause then He must use secondary means. But what secondary means are available? The only candidate left is a metaphysical determinism that operates through physical events. And this option puts the theological determinist in the same boat with the materialists. It is not really surprising when materialists advoate determinism. ... Many materialists consider the notion of free will to be a 'useful fiction'.

 

[rakovsky]

In contrast, Kenneth Keathley, of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, disagrees with Determinism (as opposed to free will) and says that it is essentially materialist in his book Salvation and Sovereignty:

Since he is a Baptist theologian considering Calvinism as essentially materialistic, maybe I should have started with him in the OP since this is a Baptist forum.

So far peoples' comments have been pretty supportive.