Featured The Philosophy of Calvinism

I also agree with TULIP (just not through Calvinism). So, like you, I get to the same conclusions differently than the Calvinist would.

When it comes to Scripture I believe it is sufficient. The issue is men often seek knowledge about things when the Bible's answer is "gird up your loins and I will ask you....".

 

The presuppositions in the OP are philosophical and they are assumed in Calvinism.

This thread is proof.

We have argued around these presuppositions, ignored these philosophical ideas, but no Calvinist has even once ventured to defend them biblically.

That is Calvinism. It is based on Svripture, yes, but also on undefeated philosophy.

We know the Scripture is correct. But as Rob noted - no member on this thread is elevating Calvinism to scripture.

Do why is it we just assume Calvinistic reasoning of Scripture correct?

 

Because that is where my interest is. If it were baseball season it may be different.

I am not name calling. I do not understand why people think "philosophy" is a bad word. We all incorporate philosophical ideas when we reason out scrioture. We have to.

I am simply saying we need to identify these ideas and defend them.

Here I identified several. But we have talked around them.

I am genuinely interested in how they would be defended biblically. These are at the very heart of Calvinism (as a theology). If the presuppositions are incorrect then so is the theology even if the conclusions are right.

 

You are equating Calvinism Scripture?

Calvinism started with John Calvin (his reworking of the existing doctrine) and was systemized (you could say "codified") by Beza.

Christ never once approached many of the topics of Calvinism.

This is what I was speaking of. You are equating your understanding of Scripture with Scripture itself. This is not right.

What we need to do is explain our reasoning, not just call it Scripture.

 

Again, if you cannot highlight in your Bible where those presuppositions are declared (and you cannot) then they are inferred or assumed.

We have to have a respect for what is written - for the text of Scripture. We give Scrioture, give our conclusions, and explain our reasoning.

When we elevate our understanding to Scripture itself we are elevating ourselves, in a sense, to the level of God.

 

The issue is many of the presuppositions held by Calvinism are not only absent from the text of Scripture but there is no evidence they were ever taught until after the 25th century AD.

Assumptions are just making unsupported assumptions.

Show me a verse that attributes John Calvin's judicial philosophy to God.

 

Yes, please. That is what I am asking.

Let's start at the beginning.

Provide a text that attributes the late 25th century judicial philosophy to God as divine justice (retributive justice) and as the basis of redemption.

Provide a verse that states it is just to punish an innocent man for the sins of a guilty man (not for another man, but for those sins).

That would be a good start because if those two assumptions are wrong then so is Calvinism.

 

I thought about that. My title is not the best and does not express well what I was getting at.

With "theology" it depends on the type (I am dependent on D.A. Carson for my categories here)

Theology proper is the study of God.
Biblical Theology is the study of the Bible, a book of the Bible, or a theme running through the Bible.
Anthropology is the study of man.
Pneumatoloty is the study of the Holy Spirit.
Soteriology is the study of salvation or our doctrine of salvation.
Historical Theology is the study of the history of theological development and Christian doctrine.
(I'll stop there as I do not want to exceed your question)

Systematic Theology is a systematic study of the Bible using Biblical Theology, Historical Theology, Anthropology, Soteriology, philosophy, ect. and is largely contemporary as it addresses the problems of it's times.

BUT I typically just use "theology" to include the study of God and God's work with man in a general sense.

I do agree with Barth that any theology that does not start with Christ, that tries to understand God through a different path, is not theology but solely philosophy because we cannot know God except God as revealed to us by Christ.

 

No, I do not assume men are innocent (quite the contrary).

I want to clarify something, brother, because I think we are starting to talk past one another. I agree with the conclusions of TULIP. I just do not agree with the way Calvinists get there (I believe those presuppositions are wrong).

I agree with the passage you present (and really, with any you can present because what I reject of Calvinism is it's presuppositions, not the Scripture Calvinism uses).

I agree with Total Depravity. I agree that men are not righteous and are, in fact, totally depraved when it comes to salvation. That is why we need a Savior.
I agree with Unconditional Election. I agree that God elected men without condition on the part of men (nothing in men influenced God to elect them)
I agree with Limited Atonement. I agree that Christ died to save the Bride, the Church, those who believe and that God put in His hand.
I agree with Irresistible Grace. I agree that God's will is going to be done despite the will of men, that God's grace will win in the lives of the elect.
I agree with the Preservation of the Saints. I agree in the eternal security of the believer.
I agree with "Double Predestination". I agree that both those who are saved and those who will be damned are predestined for those states.
And I agree that we are living in the best of all possible worlds in accordance of God's plan because God is in sovereign and is working out everything for the good (everything will glorify God).

I just do not get there through Calvinism. I do not agree with the things that Calvinism presupposes (things that are not in the Bible). I believe the philosophy involved at the foundation of Calvinism is wrong, but I know it is most often presupposed and rarely addressed. Calvinists just tend to toss up passages without ever addressing these presuppositions.

What needs to be addressed with punishment is whether or not there is a passage that states an innocent man can be justly punished for the sins (with the punishment for those sins, i.e., as if that man were the sinner) of a guilty man. I am not talking about Adam or original sin.

I am simply asking for a verse that says it is just to condemn an innocent man to acquit a guilty man by punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty. I accept an innocent man may be punished for a guilty man, but am asking if he can be "condemned" or treated as if he had committed that crime. (Aquinas' philosophy vs Calvin's philosophy concerning punishment).