The Philosophy of Calvinism

[Rob_BW]

You are missing my point.

I am not making an argument at all.

I am stating a fact.

Calvinism (TULIP) started not with scripture but as a rebuttal to the Five Articles which was addressing a philosophical issue (predestination and the problem of evil).

BUT Calvinism in a larger scope is a theology (Calvinism more than TULIP).

Again, NOT an argument- a fact.

I then identified several philosophical presuppositions upon which Calvinism is dependent.

Again, not an argument but a fact.

What I wanted was a discussion on these presuppositions NOT an argument about why I was only addressing Calvinism or that other theologies ate also dependent on presupposed ideas (they are).

Can you address the philosophical presuppositions held by Calvinism?

Why bother?

You start your post by separating out what some consider essential points of Calvinism and demean them as less than theology merely because of their historical origins, when you readily admit that the entirety of theology could likewise be categorized as philosophy of judged by the same rules.

Starting off a conversation about presuppositions by high-brow name-calling the subject matter is an irony too great to be ignored.

 

[Dave G]

One thing to remember – Calvinism as the Doctrines of Grace, TULIP, or the Canons of Dort were not self-standing expressions or complete theological formations. The Canons of Dort were a response to and rebuttal of the Five Articles of the Remonstrance which were articles put forward by then-Calvinists concerning the philosophical question predestination as it relates to the problem of evil.

I agree that they are not complete theological formations, but are only a summary.

I disagree, Jon in your assertion that they were philosophical in nature...
Rather, they were doctrinal in nature and addressed doctrinal errors as seen by the "Re-formed" churches of Holland when it came to what was being taught by some of those who opposed them.

The canons of Dordrecht emanated from a series of meeting held from late 1618 to roughly mid-1619 to address the teachings of Jakob Hermanszoon, whose followers had drawn up a series of doctrinal articles often referred to as the Five Articles of the Remonstrants in 1610...
Which were in response to the Belgic Confession of 1561.

This history is easily found today.

Is Calvinism Theology or Philosophy?

Calvinism itself, as defined by “the Doctrines of Grace” or TULIP is not a theology but rather a religious philosophy associated with the branch of theology called soteriology (the study of salvation). This does not make Calvinism wrong, but it would be wrong to refer to Calvinism itself as a study of salvation (as a soteriology) and even more incorrect to refer to Calvinism as a theology.

Again, "Calvinism" is not a religious philosophy, but easily supported by Scripture.

It is a rather limited summary of Biblical doctrine, not a man-made philosophy.

 

[JonC]

It can be.

I disagree.

For example, what is commonly called "Calvinism", at least with regard to the TULIP, I've never found it necessary to go outside of Scripture itself for my understanding on any topic.
In a deeper sense, I've never had to go outside of the words on the page to understand concepts like "Divine Reprobation", "calling", election and predestination, and many other things that so-called "Calvinists" hold to.
With me it all started out small and built upon itself through my studies in His word over the past two decades.

I agree.

Those do, in my estimation, constitute most of the influences that pry at us as believers to take God's word as anything other than what is written.
That is why the Lord specifically states that we should abandon our own understanding and trust Him and His words alone ( Proverbs 3:5-7 ).

In other words, we should chuck all that out the window and trust the Lord to show us, in His time, the things in His word that we currently do not understand.

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....".

 

[JonC]

I agree that they are not complete theological formations, but are only a summary.

I disagree, Jon in your assertion that they were philosophical in nature...
Rather, they were doctrinal in nature and addressed doctrinal errors as seen by the "Re-formed" churches of Holland when it came to what was being taught by some of those who opposed them.

The canons of Dordrecht emanated from a series of meeting held from late 1618 to roughly mid-1619 to address the teachings of Jakob Hermanszoon, whose followers had drawn up a series of doctrinal articles often referred to as the Five Articles of the Remonstrants in 1610...
Which were in response to the Belgic Confession of 1561.

This history is easily found today.

Again, "Calvinism" is not a religious philosophy, but easily supported by Scripture.

It is a rather limited summary of Biblical doctrine, not a man-made philosophy.

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?

 

[JonC]

Why bother?

You start your post by separating out what some consider essential points of Calvinism and demean them as less than theology merely because of their historical origins, when you readily admit that the entirety of theology could likewise be categorized as philosophy of judged by the same rules.

Starting off a conversation about presuppositions by high-brow name-calling the subject matter is an irony too great to be ignored.

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.

 

[Dave G]

Historical Calvinism, on the other hand, as defined by the system of belief held by John Calvin and further developed by Theodore Beza is a theology and Calvin’s Institutes is a Systematic Theology. The soteriology within Calvinistic Theology is more developed and complex than the issues of divine predestination within salvation (than Calvinism as a religious philosophy).

Historically, what is now known as "Calvinism" was not first codified by John Calvin...
It is the faith once delivered to the saints through first the Lord Jesus, and then His Apostles.

I do agree, however, that the "soteriology" within Calvinistic theology is more developed and complex then just a few of the issues within it.
Again, "TULIP" is simply a summary in response to the Five Articles of the Remonstrants.

Calvinism as we use it (TULIP or the Doctrines of Grace) begin with Historical Calvinist’s answer to the Remonstrates concerning the philosophical question of predestination and the problem of sin.

I disagree.
To me, what is commonly called "Calvinism" begins with the Lord's statement to Moses in Exodus 33:17-19.

" And the Lord said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy."

It also began even further back, in human history, with this statement to Abraham:

" Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." ( Genesis 12:1-3 ).

See Galatians 3:8.

 

[Dave G]

What philosophical presuppositions is Calvinism built upon?

None.

The most obvious starting point for Calvinism is the assumption that one philosophy of justice, retributive justice, is descriptive of divine justice and how God deals with man in a moral sense.

It's not assumed.
It's declared in the Scriptures.

We can go over those, if you would like.

There are many other philosophical and theoretical ideas upon which Calvinism is built. One is the assumption that moral justness is at the heart of God’s work of reconciliation. Another is that righteousness is a moral (rather than relational). And of course, there are many others. But I think what is listed is at the very foundation of Calvinism.

To me, this comes through understanding the Scriptures, Jon, and not through theological assumptions.
In addition, righteousness is both moral and relational in its essence.

As to the underlined, I do not.

Whether or not we agree, in essence, with the "Five Points of Calvinism"...
I can clearly see that we do not agree with "TULIP" being doctrinal, and not philosophical.

That has been our main difference since I came on this forum, Jon.
You see it as philosophical, while I see it strictly as a matter of Biblical doctrine and truth versus error.

 

[JonC]

Historically, what is now known as "Calvinism" was not first codified by John Calvin...
It is the faith once delivered to the saints through first the Lord Jesus, and then His Apostles.

I do agree, however, that the "soteriology" within Calvinistic theology is more developed and complex then just a few of the issues within it.
Again, "TULIP" is simply a summary in response to the Five Articles of the Remonstrants.

I disagree.
To me, what is commonly called "Calvinism" begins with the Lord's statement to Moses in Exodus 33:17-19.

" And the Lord said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy."

It also began even further back, in human history, with this statement to Abraham:

" Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." ( Genesis 12:1-3 ).

See Galatians 3:8.

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.

 

[Dave G]

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

No, it did not, sir.

What you're seeing in the "Protestant Reformation" was the truth being allowed to be, once more, brought into the public sphere after 1,500 years of "free will" teaching and dominance, my friend.
But one thing the "Reformation" did, was to also allow more errors to be freely disseminated.

Which is where we are today in these last of the last days.

 

[JonC]

None.

It's not assumed.
It's declared in the Scriptures.

We can go over those, if you would like.

To me, this comes through understanding the Scriptures, Jon, and not through theological assumptions.
In addition, righteousness is both moral and relational in its essence.

As to the underlined, I do not.

Whether or not we agree, in essence, with the "Five Points of Calvinism"...
I can clearly see that we do not agree with "TULIP" being doctrinal, and not philosophical.

That has been our main difference since I came on this forum, Jon.
You see it as philosophical, while I see it strictly as a matter of Biblical doctrine and truth versus error.

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.

 

[Dave G]

Christ never once approached many of the topics of Calvinism.

Give me an example.

 

[Dave G]

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

I can and will, if you wish.

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

When Scripture properly understood, is declared...
it's called, "preaching the truth".

Do you understand the difference between "black and white" versus "shades of grey"?
One is truth versus error, while the other is man-made philosophy.

 

[JonC]

No, it did not, sir.

What you're seeing in the "Protestant Reformation" was the truth being allowed to be, once more, brought into the public sphere after 1,500 years of "free will" teaching and dominance, my friend.
But one thing the "Reformation" did, was to also allow more errors to be freely disseminated.

Which is where we are today in these last of the last days.

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.

 

[Dave G]

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

What presuppositions?

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

You'll have to be more specific.
Meanwhile, I'll read back through the thread.

 

[JonC]

I can and will, if you wish.

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.

 

[Dave G]

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).

I am not aware of any.

Now, if you want to address Scripture that states that it is just to punish men, who inherited Adam's predilection for ( love for and bias towards ) sin, then we can fill pages.
But why do that?
All we really need to do is read the book of Romans for that.

For example:
"There is none righteous, no not one".

Why is there none righteous?
See Romans 5:12.

To me your statement assumes that there are men that are innocent of sin ( which I may not be reading correctly )...
Which there are none.
God punishes men for sins, not for Adam's sin, specifically.
Therefore, if a "Calvinist" states that God judiciously punishes men for "Original Sin", then I would have to disagree.

As I see it, "Original Sin" is the Scriptural teaching that Adam's love of sin was passed down to all men through the flesh...
That his corrupted desires and bias towards disobedience of God's commands are birthed in each succeeding generation;
It is this that the Lord overcomes through the power of the new birth.

That's not philosophy, it's the doctrine of "Total Depravity", or what I tend to call "Total Corruption"...
It is a term derived from Biblical truths regarding man's condition as described in many places, primarily Romans 1:18-32.

 

[Rob_BW]

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.

I don't believe many of us see philosophy as bad, per se. It's when philosophy is pitted against theology, and the manner in which one is presented as inferior, that's where the rub lies.

You could have titled your post Calvinism, and skipped the superfluous opening remarks and just began with "What presuppositions underpin Calvinism."

Now I really am curious as to what your definition of theology (in the broad sense, not Theology Proper) really is.

 

[Dave G]

Provide a text that attributes John Calvin's judicial philosophy to God as divine justice (retributive justice) and as the basis of redemption.

I'm sorry, Jon.

Perhaps I wasn't properly prepared to enter this thread, not being a student of John Calvin or any of those who follow him.
I deal strictly with the Bible and its doctrines, and not with systems of teaching.
To answer your quote above, I'd have to dig into Calvin's "Institutes" to see what he said about that subject.

But I did see you describing "TULIP" as philosophy, and it was that to which I disagreed.
To me, it is a summary of doctrinal teachings regarding salvation...

Furthermore,
It is "soteriological" ( dealing with what Scripture teaches about how and why we as men are saved from God's coming wrath ) in nature.

 

[JonC]

I don't believe many of us see philosophy as bad, per se. It's when philosophy is pitted against theology, and the manner in which one is presented as inferior, that's where the rub lies.

You could have titled your post Calvinism, and skipped the superfluous opening remarks and just began with "What presuppositions underpin Calvinism."

Now I really am curious as to what your definition of theology (in the broad sense, not Theology Proper) really is.

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.

 

[JonC]

I am not aware of any.

Now, if you want to address Scripture that states that it is just to punish men, who inherited Adam's predilection for ( love for and bias towards ) sin, then we can fill pages.
But why do that?
All we really need to do is read the book of Romans for that.

For example:
"There is none righteous, no not one".

Why is there none righteous?
See Romans 5:12.

To me your statement assumes that there are men that are innocent of sin ( which I may not be reading correctly )...
Which there are none.
God punishes men for sins, not for Adam's sin, specifically.

Therefore, if a "Calvinist" states that God judiciously punishes men for "Original Sin", then I would have to disagree.

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).