The Philosophy of Calvinism

[Dave G]

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

I'm assuming you meant to type, "the late 15th Century judicial philosophy to God as divine justice..."

There isn't just one.
It's based on an understanding of the following Scriptural truths:

1) God is holy.
2) God requires sinless perfection.
3) God will not permit sin to dwell with Him.
4) The Law was designed to show men that they could not obey it, in and of themselves...
It was holy in design and purpose.

5) Man needs a Saviour to save ourselves from not only His wrath, but our own love of sin ( disobedience to God's commands ).
6) Since no man is worthy, He provided His Son, who is God in the flesh, for that act of redemption.

I can show Scriptures that address all of these points.
Where is the philosophy in that?

 

[JonC]

I'm assuming you meant to type, "the late 15th Century judicial philosophy to God as divine justice..."

There isn't just one.
It's based on an understanding of the following Scriptural truths:

1) God is holy.
2) God requires sinless perfection.
3) God will not permit sin to dwell with Him.
4) The Law was designed to show men that they could not obey it, in and of themselves...
It was holy in design and purpose.

5) Man needs a Saviour to save ourselves from not only His wrath, but our own love of sin ( disobedience to God's commands ).
6) Since no man is worthy, He provided His Son, who is God in the flesh, for that act of redemption.

I can show Scriptures that address all of these points.
Where is the philosophy in that?

lol....yes. The 15th century philosophy.

OK. This is a good start.

What you provided are not passages but your understanding of Spiritual truths.

I told you I'm a Biblicist. If it is not in the Bible then I may believe it, but I refuse to hold it to the level of scripture.

That's my philosophy of establishing doctrinal authority. To be fair, I will explain my reason for that method. I base that on the idea in Scripture. that interpreting "all scripture is God 'breathed'" (2 Tim 3) , Paul's prohibition against going beyond "what is written" (1 Corinthians 4), and the teaching that we are to evaluate doctrine against scripture (1 Thessalonians 5). From those passages I come to the conclusion that men must be able to explain how they arrive at their conclusions when their conclusions are not "what is written". Often Christians go beyond "what is written", which may actually be a sin if Paul's words to Corinth was a command for all believers.

So yes, please show me a verse that says it is just to condemn an innocent man in order to acquit a guilty man. That would be a very good start.

 

[Dave G]

(I believe those presuppositions are wrong)

What presuppositions?

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.

I'll need specific examples in order to understand how you see what I quoted in post # 61, for example, as pre-suppositions.

To me,
No believer has any business approaching God's words with anything like a pre-conceived idea,
and that idea not being expected to be torn down by what God has to say.

They should trust it and Him exclusively, and their thinking should expect to change dramatically in favor of what is revealed on the pages.

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.

Understood.
Again, I know of none.

But I sense I know where you're going with this one...

 

[Dave G]

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).

I assume you mean "Penal Substitution".

An innocent Man was indeed "punished" for the sins of guilty men.
He was made a curse...
According to the Scriptures, Jesus Christ was stricken by God and the Lord was pleased to bruise Him ( Isaiah 53:4-10 )...

I myself go back and forth on "PS", and can see the arguments both for and against it.

Personally,
I plainly see God's word teaching that Christ bore the sins of many, and that He was made sin, in God's eyes, for those many ( the whosoever believeth ) so that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.
Did He ever sin?
No.

So if you're referring to Calvin's theory on Penal Substitution, you're wading into a very tough ( for me ) area of Biblical understanding, IMO.
In essence, God did strike His own Son, and did bruise His own Son by allowing, as sovereign Ruler, His own Son's crucifixion.

But the question remains...
Did He do it in our place?

My answer ( subject to change as the Lord shows me more ) is that no man was worthy, no man was capable and no man is / was just.

He did not take our place on the cross.
He did not suffer in our place.
That was only ever His place, and could have never been filled by one of us.

Death and Hell were and are what we receive were it not for His grace.
He only provided a way of satisfying God's justice and holiness...
The Righteous for the unrighteous so that we might be redeemed ( bought ) out of that wrath and our sins paid for and forgiven.


Looks like I'll have to give this some more study, Jon.

 

[Parashah]

His post was in relation to THEOLOGY in general, not the gospel, nor Calvinism in particular:

"Love is not rude."

"Terms of Service and Rules
Baptist Board Posting Rules & Guidelines..."

"Unbelievers visit this site as well and when they see anger toward others in the Body of Christ they immediately pass a bad judgment on us as a whole. Please be sensitive to this issue. Golden Rule - 'Post unto others as you would have them post unto you'."

You are very antagonistic and do not bear the Fruit of the Spirit.

I have already complained about the rudeness on this site and will now delete my Profile here. Goodbye.

 

[Dave G]

@JonC
But to me, there is a difference between "TULIP" and what the entire body of "Reformed Theology" teaches.

I separate the two and I do not call "TULIP", "Calvinism".
I call Reformed Theology, which includes a-millennialism, infant baptism of supposedly elect infants to salvation, and many other topics, "Calvinism"...
But not election, predestination, calling and so forth.

However, I also believe that some of what constitutes Reformed Theology, in its entirety, is error...
Not necessarily philosophy or as approaching Scripture with pre-supposition, but rather it approaches Scripture and derives certain ideas out of it without really testing them further by all Scripture.

Infant Baptism versus believer's baptism is one of them.
Another is a-millenialism versus a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth from Jerusalem.

Yet another is Penal Substitution...and, being mindful of those who hold to it and their feelings about it, I would not refuse fellowship with those who believe it.
I just would have trouble embracing it myself,
despite my leaning towards it at times and leaning away from it at others.

In the end, what you're describing to me is essentially "Presbyterianism",
and I don't agree with everything that John Calvin, John Knox and many others have taught.

 

[Dave G]

I have already complained about the rudeness on this site and will now delete my Profile here.

I agree sir.

There are some very rude people who post here, and to me, their behaviour should not be tolerated.
On any side.

 

[Parashah]

I agree sir.

There are some very rude people who post here, and to me, their behaviour should not be tolerated.
On any side.

All good.

Stay Strong in Christ.

 

[Dave G]

All good.

Stay Strong in Christ.

Pray about it.

It's not easy for some of us being here, but there may be a reason for you to stay.
Ask Him and leave the decision in His hands, my friend.

As for staying strong in Christ, I will by His grace.
He will keep me there ( Philippians 1:6, 1 Peter 1:5 ).

 

[Parashah]

Pray about it.

It's not easy for some of us being here, but there may be a reason for you to stay.
Ask Him and leave the decision in His hands, my friend.

Thx you seem very genuine.

However, I prayed about it a few days ago, when I was frustrated then, and decided to give it another try.

Unfortunately, I'm battling ill health and chronic pain. So I don't have the energy and patience I did when younger. Best I try elsewhere rather than let them drag me down to their level.

I look forward to meeting you at Christ's return when the problems of this world will disappear. Till then...Be blessed in the Lord

 

[Dave G]

Thx you seem very genuine.

Thank you.

But anything genuine that is of any consequence in the body of Christ, you realize is generated by the Lord, not our filthy flesh...
Right?

I have prayed about it a few days back when I was frustrated and decided to give it another try but as I'm battling ill health and regular chronic pain I don't have the energy and patience I did when younger.

I'm 54 and have been a believer since I was 12 in 1978.
I'm beginning to fall apart myself, having had migraines for most of my life, the beginnings of hemi-plegic migraine the past few weeks, being pre-diabetic and other bodily infirmities...

But I can say that in my time here:
The Lord has taught me much, and yet more from specifically being on this site.
Much of it not from His word, but regarding being among others who profess Christ.

I'm not saying you should stay because you might become discouraged...
But because He might show you something through it all despite having to see people at their supposed worst.
Again, please pray about it.
I've had my own bouts with discouragement over the past couple of years being here, and for some reason I feel He wants me to be here for a bit longer.

Perhaps He has a reason for you coming here that you're not aware of right now.

 

[kyredneck]

"Love is not rude."

"Terms of Service and Rules
Baptist Board Posting Rules & Guidelines..."

"Unbelievers visit this site as well and when they see anger toward others in the Body of Christ they immediately pass a bad judgment on us as a whole. Please be sensitive to this issue. Golden Rule - 'Post unto others as you would have them post unto you'."

You are very antagonistic and do not bear the Fruit of the Spirit.

I have already complained about the rudeness on this site and will now delete my Profile here. Goodbye.

To my knowledge post #37 was the only time I've ever addressed you and how you can construe the post as antagonistic and rude is beyond me. Perhaps 'love shouldn't be so thin skinned'.

 

[Parashah]

Thank you.

But anything genuine that is of any consequence in the body of Christ, you realize is generated by the Lord, not our filthy flesh...
Right?

I'm 54 and have been a believer since I was 12 in 1978.
I'm beginning to fall apart myself, having had migraines for most of my life, the beginnings of hemi-plegic migraine the past few weeks, being pre-diabetic and other bodily infirmities...

But I can say that in my time here:
The Lord has taught me much, and yet more from specifically being on this site.
Much of it not from His word, but regarding being among others who profess Christ.

I'm not saying you should stay because you might become discouraged...
But because He might show you something through it all despite having to see people at their supposed worst.
Again, please pray about it.
I've had my own bouts with discouragement over the past couple of years being here, and for some reason I feel He wants me to be here for a bit longer.

Perhaps He has a reason for you coming here that you're not aware of right now.

Cheers but I'm a little older than that and unfortunately have been pensioned off and no longer work due to ill health.

I was saved in 1970 and have worked as a Pastor and missionary. I'm doing some studies in Law and need to start concentrating on those.

I think it would be very hard to be a Christian website with the amount of trolling in 2020 and will pray for these sites.

I've already sent a message asking for info on how to delete my account and just waiting for a reply.

Take care and stay strong in the Lord.

 

[Parashah]

To my knowledge post #37 was the only time I've ever addressed you and how you can construe the post as antagonistic and rude is beyond me. Perhaps 'love shouldn't be so thin skinned'.

I'll leave it for God to judge between us on Judgement Day.

 

[kyredneck]

I'll leave it for God to judge between us on Judgement Day.

Lol, so you're shaking the dust from your feet with me over post #37. Wow.

 

[Dave G]

Lol, so you're shaking the dust from your feet with me over post #37. Wow.

One thing I'm finding that was hard for me to digest, at first, Kentucky...
Me essentially being a "loner" except for a few friends here and there for much of my life;
is that writing is a bit different than being face to face.

Stuck behind a computer screen,
One only has another's words with which to gauge a reaction or reply to.

As thick-headed as I am, I have to remember that my words have an affect on people...
Whether or not I care about that affect?
That's what I'm slowly learning.
Yes, I do care, so I need to edit my posts before I hit, "send"...
But I'm not perfect at it.

Neither are any of us, I'm coming to see.

FYI:
Some people are sensitive to how another person comes off in their writing ( or even speaking, so watch out ), while others simply take it in stride.
Also, there are people that don't seem to care about how they come off in their writing or speaking,
and I've seen it no matter which theological understanding one may hold on a given subject.

Sometimes people write out of an emotional reaction...
I'm guilty of that in spades.
That's where grace comes in, my friend.
On both sides.

Let's all remember that we are works in progress, and that we cannot trust our flesh.
God will help us, will He not?
Meanwhile, we can show grace to one another.

It's all we have.

 

[JonC]

I assume you mean "Penal Substitution".

An innocent Man was indeed "punished" for the sins of guilty men.
He was made a curse...
According to the Scriptures, Jesus Christ was stricken by God and the Lord was pleased to bruise Him ( Isaiah 53:4-10 )...

I myself go back and forth on "PS", and can see the arguments both for and against it.

Personally,
I plainly see God's word teaching that Christ bore the sins of many, and that He was made sin, in God's eyes, for those many ( the whosoever believeth ) so that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.
Did He ever sin?
No.

So if you're referring to Calvin's theory on Penal Substitution, you're wading into a very tough ( for me ) area of Biblical understanding, IMO.
In essence, God did strike His own Son, and did bruise His own Son by allowing, as sovereign Ruler, His own Son's crucifixion.

But the question remains...
Did He do it in our place?

My answer ( subject to change as the Lord shows me more ) is that no man was worthy, no man was capable and no man is / was just.

He did not take our place on the cross.
He did not suffer in our place.
That was only ever His place, and could have never been filled by one of us.

Death and Hell were and are what we receive were it not for His grace.
He only provided a way of satisfying God's justice and holiness...
The Righteous for the unrighteous so that we might be redeemed ( bought ) out of that wrath and our sins paid for and forgiven.


Looks like I'll have to give this some more study, Jon.

I do mean one aspect of Penal Substitution Theory. Calvinism is dependent on the Theory (where as other Reformed theologies, like Lutheranism, is not...historically anyway).

The Calvinistic idea of Limited Atonement depends heavily on the idea that one man can justly be punished for the sins of another - NOT for another but for another's sins. There are other issues associated with this idea as well (such as "sins" being treated separately from the one who committed the act, "sins" themselves constituting a demand for justice, etc.).

So there are a lot of things in Calvinism that need to be identified, studied, and defended.

Normally it is simply accepted as "plain readings", even though it is a minority reading in Christianity (which does not matter, even if it were a majority view it'd still need defending because it is not Scripture).

It's an interesting study.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Lol, so you're shaking the dust from your feet with me over post #37. Wow.

The irony in this is breathtaking. The first of his posts I noticed were encouraging rank trolling. Sometimes I marvel at the lack of discernment.

We really do have a hard time seeing ourselves, and each other. I guess Jesus had a reason for speaking of beams and motes after all. The eyes have it. Go figure.

 

[Reynolds]

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).

The reason I chose to address Calvinism is that this is the Calv section. Also on other threads Calvinism has been equated to Scripture itself and the Calvinistic understanding not to reasoning but to divine revelation.

Can you address the philosophical presuppositions held by Calvinism?

That was my intent but thus far these presuppositions have been entirely overlooked.

I know what you are getting at, but I don't get that far. I see Calvinism as Philosophy because it rests on Scripture and Philosophy. I see Arminianism the same way.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Total Depravity?

[Gen 6:5 KJV] 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Total depravity - is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org
"While often misunderstood, the doctrine of total depravity is an acknowledgement that the Bible teaches that as a result of the fall of man (Genesis 3:6) every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—have been corrupted by sin."

Based on the scripture and the statement explaining the term "total depravity", I agree it qualifies as 100% - total! The results of total depravity is that man, in his natural state, is separated from God and the preaching of the cross is foolishness to him.

To those that disagree, what percentage would you assign, if any? Is there a threshold where God says:
[Jhn 8:44 KJV] 44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

or
And GOD saw that the wickedness of this man was below the threshold, and his every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil sometime.

God forbid!