Search the Community

"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5 Also is this the Christian Priviledge my BLM friends keep telling me about?

Now for something completely different, can different ideas be true? Okay, this video is about ideas concerning the flat earth theory, but . . . I think there is another thing touched upon in it, that is interesting to ponder. Don't get bogged down it the things that the video is trying to inform you of (unless you really want to), but instead, skip ahead to 8 minutes and 36 seconds nto the video. Consider what the narrator is trying to get accoss about how we know things, and how things can be seen from different perspectives, and different things can seem true from those perspectives, and perhaps, not really be as certain as we think they are. When you grasp the concept, if you grasp the concept, keep it in mind, next time you engage in or read debates on topics like pre-trib/post-trib eschatology, or Calvinism/Arminianism sotierology, etc. Above all, don't go crazy being to serious, relax and enjoy our differences. I am going to set the video here, to play from 8 minutes, 36 seconds forward, if you want to watch the whole thing, you will have to use the video player's slider, to start the video at the beginning. Fair warning: If you feel tempted to make a discussion/debate of this, especially the topic of the shape of the earth addressed in the video if you watch it from the beginning,, you may find yourself banned from participation in this thread, and your posts deleted. The thread (regardless of the topic that the video author intended) is about how it might be possible, for competing ideas to be true, as long as they are not directly contradictory to each other.

One thing that I find partly appealing in Calvinism is - and I am not sure how to put this - a naturalistic, use of reason 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 reason 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. First, 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. He continues: 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) Second, the concept of the natural order is 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." Third, Calvin may not always use modern materialism and laws of nature to judge religion, but he uses a sense of naturalism in employing reason in numerous cases. To give an example, when judging the verse in 1 Cor 10 when Paul writes that Christ was a spiritual rock that followed the Israelites, Calvin decided that this must refer to a visible physical rock. He then 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. (SOURCE: Calvin's Commentary on 1 Cor 10) http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_corinthians/10.htm From a modern, naturalistic standpoint, I find his reasoning appealing. In nature, rocks don't follow people, so it is easy to think of this as a stream of water following people. On the other hand, if I put myself in a supernatural mindset, I don't see any purely logical obstacle to thinking that there was an actual physical material rock, even one that looked like a normal rock, following the Israelites. So it seems that he is using a naturalistic method. To give 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 show they succeeded, 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 naturalism, 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 10 centuries or so. To give a third example, I read that Calvin forbade Genevans from make their traditional pilgrimages to a regional body of water which by legend a saint had made holy. Unfortunately, I don't remember which one this was, but I found a similar story about Zwingli. 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 overall I sympathize with Zwingli and Calvin. I am personally quite skeptical that a saint blessed the waters in either case, especially such that they would still be miraculous centuries 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 normal naturalistic senses of reality. These are not the only cases. I can think of numerous others where Calvin or other major Reformed writers took a naturalistic view on religious questions in ways similar to those in the cases above. So I am looking to see if Reformed writers have ever laid out the basis for their premises in this naturalistic aspect of their reasoning.