Do Calvinist use “Philosophy” or Not?

I believe none of your options state the matter accurately.

#1 is the closest, but I would say it this way:

"Calvinism, like every other system of Christian belief, uses philosophy in its attempt to rightly interpret scripture to arrive at what it believes to be an accurate understanding of what the whole of scriptures teach."

It is a bit misleading to say Calvinism "uses philosophy to interpret scripture." ...not because the statement isn't true, but because it isn't complete. It makes is sound as though calvinism seeks only to fit scripture verses into its already established philosophy. However, Calvinism ALSO seeks to have its "philosophy" shaped by scripture (as does Arminianism). Of course Both sides would argue that the other side does NOT do this, but instead tries to force-fit scriptures into thier pre-determined beleifs.

 

I know a non-reformed theologian who once said, "Calvinists have better Biblical arguments, non-reformed have better philosophical arguments." I have never asked him to quote him, but I agreed.

 

Calvinism is Biblical interpretation which falls short of full revelation from scriptures. Because it is based upon scriptures and because it does have a believable solution to difficult passages, many Christians without widespread understanding of the whole of the Bible have been persuaded that Calvinism is an accurate view of what the scripture teaches. Once the doctrinal view takes root in the new Calvinist convert, it begins to grow in strength with help from Calvinist teachers in arguing against those who question the position on the basis of the scriptures which refute Calvinism.

It is unfortunate that so many Christians end up wrong about so many different kinds of doctrine, but it is a good thing that the various supporters promote their views in open debate so those who are seeking wisdom from God may see the various opinions for themselves and the Lord can show the seeker what is truth among the error.

 

So...Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Owen, Watson, Bunyan, Whitfield, Spurgeon, LLoyd-Jones, MacArthur... You're saying their REAL problem was that they just didn't have a "widespread understanding of the whole Bible"? Something their Arminian counterparts did happen to have?

 

I guess if I fall on the wrong side of the fence with them when I disagree with some Calvinistic views, then yes, that is exactly what I am saying about them. I also have disagreements with Arminian ideas as well, so I guess I really just don't fit in anywhere. I will nevertheless hold true to what I believe the Bible says until shown otherwise, even If nobody agrees with me.

 

That's your prerogative, I just don't know if it's accurate to say that those men who DO agree with large portions of calvinism simply need more bible study to "widen" their understanding of scripture.

 

Benjamin, I find you "begging the question" with your survey questions. There is only one conclusion that someone answering your questions can take -- philosophy is bad.

We ALL use philosophy, which is the "seeking of wisdom" -- something the very Scriptures tell us to do. But what canot happen is the elevation of a philosophical argument ABOVE the distinct and specific revelation of God in the Text.

 

Do you realize that you have offered a "philosophical" answer and not a Scriptural exegesis to this issue? :laugh:

 

You would need to give your definition of "philosophy" before I can answer that. I have just looked up the word in a dictionary (a secular one), and it gave me the following meanings:

1. Examination of basic concepts
2. School of thought
3. Guiding or underlying principles
4. Set of beliefs or aims
5. Calm resignation
​

Most, if not all, of those meanings should apply to all Christians.

 

Talk about begging the question in the OP. Then the poll? Uh, no point in even saying anything about that as it's clear what the problem is there! LOL!!!! :laugh:

I've already affirmed the fact that non-cals philosiphize, and which points they use in their philosphized sytem in their assailment upon objections to Biblical points.

 

Basically what he means is 1) Calvinist theology is not Biblically based, but is "opinion", or, "philosophy" based only on "their reason." 2) That non-cals theology is Biblical only, not derived from their "philosophy" or reason.

Something similar to this.

 

I find that an interesting statement and one I agree with, but I would apply the same statement towards those who hold to Arminianism. As to myself I hold to both loosely.
In regards to the OP question on philosophy being used to arrive at our understanding I think it should be true to all seekers of truth as long as the term means truth seeker and not preconceived ideas or bents.

 

And all YOU do is make pronouncements.

 

If someone uses "phinkosophy", does that make them a "ratfink".......

 

have to decide which side to fall on though!

Really simple test to see which way that you lean towards!

basis of our salvation...

Will of God, that He determined to save us ....

Will of man, that we personally responded in faith to Christ.....

 

I know that this wasn't directed to me, but the answer is both.

 

Think was saying that the conclusions that we come to is based by intrepreting the Bible through our prepositions, and not the actual meaning of the texts themselves!

They would be saying that the system appears logical , but ONLY due to us squeezing the Bible into our own meanings!

 

You are not understanding what I stated. When I say both I do not mean parts of both and one more then the other. I mean both equally. I realize that is a difficult thing for most, but for me it is very easy as I see both taught in scripture. It is no different then me holding that Jesus is God and man. I do not lean to one side more then the other. I see Him as a man, and I see Him as God neither more dominate then the other.