Jump to content
IGNORED

Did Reformed writers explain the bases for naturalistic reasoning to judge religious questions?


rakow

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  36
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   14
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/09/2014
  • Status:  Offline

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  57
  • Topic Count:  1,546
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  10,320
  • Content Per Day:  1.42
  • Reputation:   12,323
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/15/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/05/1951

Way over my head! While surely there are spiritually discerned things in scripture, I think that things have also to at least pass some form of natural logic test, to not appear as nonsense.

I am not sure why you are focusing on Calvin/Reformers here though, it is not as though the sayings of Jesus nor the writings of Paul are devoid of natural reasoning. Pauls' question:

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?"

Now, I admit, I am not sure I understand what Paul is even saying there, but it looks like some appeal to natural reason to me!

You question:

"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."

That strikes me, personally, as almost backward. I would expect to see them lay out the basis for why they would NOT assume a premise of naturalist aspects to their reasoning, that would seem to require justification to me.

Or . . . .

am I totally failing to understand what you are fishing for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  36
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   14
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/09/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

Way over my head! While surely there are spiritually discerned things in scripture, I think that things have also to at least pass some form of natural logic test, to not appear as nonsense.

I am not sure why you are focusing on Calvin/Reformers here though, it is not as though the sayings of Jesus nor the writings of Paul are devoid of natural reasoning. Pauls' question:

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?"

Now, I admit, I am not sure I understand what Paul is even saying there, but it looks like some appeal to natural reason to me!

Thanks for your reply!

About this verse, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, I think, gives a fine explanation:
 

The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, 
and woman covered. The Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (Nu 6:5). 

In the case of the examples in my original post, I was not just asking whether a known phenomena is a normal part of nature, but why in Calvin's scheme when some religious question arises he has a strong tendency to pick a naturalistic, materialistic understanding of events and teachings in scripture and religion, instead of allowing for a supernatural one.

In the question above that you cited, nature normally has man grow shorter hair then women, and Paul concludes that based on nature that this is right. However, there were no possible grounds to argue from scripture that men must grow long hair as a rule, with some exceptions. We did not have an option of arguing that someplace in the Old Testament God says for all men to wear long hair and then the question arising of whether to take this instruction literally or metaphorically.

There is no question of debating supernatural vs. the natural explanations in the verse you cited whereby one must pick a supernatural vs. naturalistic mindset to choose.

To find an analogy of Jesus and Paul doing the same thing, I would have to look for some case in the Bible where there was a debate whether supernatural or only materialistic phenomena had occurred and Jesus or Paul said that the supernatural explanation was wrong because naturalistic explanations must be better as a rule.

To clarify, in the three examples in my opening post, there was a potential supernatural explanation or teaching and a naturalistic one, and in each case Calvin chose the naturalistic explanation. This is not to say that Calvin and Zwingli were right or wrong. At a rationalistic level, I find their naturalistic preference appealing. Nonetheless, there is a consistent pattern to that effect.

In the case of the Einsedeln spring, I sympathize with Zwingli. The story goes that in medieval times when they were building the monastery a bishop visited and had a vision of apostle Peter and angels, so that they never had to perform ritual consecration. And a voice was heard when they went to do the consecration saying not to consecrate the place because God had consecrated it. Do Reformed ever "bless" objects?

And then the virgin Mary blessed the spring in the story. I am simply skeptical and think that the world is naturalistic enough that this kind of thing basically doesn't happen and that the bishop was either mentally confused or made up the story. 

However, if I were to accept supernatural premises that this kind of thing happens and is reasonable as a matter of real world phenomena, I don't know what objections I would make.

The same is true for the moving rock in the desert with the Israelites in 1 Cor 10 and the question Calvin discussed of whether Christians cast out demons on occasion in the last 1800 years or so.

To give another example, the renowned 17th c. Reformed theologian Joseph Mede, whom the book Lives of the Puritans extols, commented on the stories of people possessed by demons in the Bible:
"I am persuaded... that these demoniacs were no other than such as we call mad-men and lunatics... (SOURCE: J. MEDE, DISCOURSES ON DIVERS TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE)

Now whether one agrees with Mede or not, the question arises of why he found that a materialistic, naturalistic explanation should have been better than a supernatural one for what is discussed in the Bible.

 

 

You question:

"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."

That strikes me, personally, as almost backward. I would expect to see them lay out the basis for why they would NOT assume a premise of naturalist aspects to their reasoning, that would seem to require justification to me.

Or . . . .

am I totally failing to understand what you are fishing for?

I understand. In ancient times, I think that when some people heard lightning, they thought that the Gods were actually doing this.

Nowadays, we would consider that backward. When we see some natural phenomenon like shooting stars, we look for naturalistic  explanations. Some people get into astrology and think that comets are omens, etc., but that's usually not part of our mentality today. It's not even a question of whether the Zodiac is Biblical; people in the modern era (including from Calvin's time and later) have started to think that these phenomena are just natural and not to look into stars and asteroids because it doesn't matter and is just superstition.

Sure, maybe the Reformed writers would consider the ancient POV as backwards, but it seems to me that if they repeatedly judge the older beliefs as superstition, that as a matter of epistemology and philosophy some of them over the last 450 years or so would write out justifications  for why the existence of a naturalistic or materialistic explanation means that the supernatural one is probably wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  57
  • Topic Count:  1,546
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  10,320
  • Content Per Day:  1.42
  • Reputation:   12,323
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/15/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/05/1951

 

 

I understand. In ancient times, I think that when some people heard lightning, they thought that the Gods were actually doing this.

Nowadays, we would consider that backward.

Thanks for the reply about the long hair verse, but I wasn't looking for an explanation of it, just using it as an example to  try to understand what you were fishing for, did not at all mean to derail the topic that you brought up.

When I said backwards, I did not mean backwards like the kid in your example I quoted, not backwards thinking, but taking things in reverse order kind of backwards.

For example, a person can decide to believe in some doctrine, then search the scriptures for evidence to back up their doctrine. That is backwards.

Frontwards, is reading and studying the scripture, to see what it says, and then get you doctrine from that.

I first case is eisegesis, bringing your idea into the scripture to make is say what you want, backwards.

The second case is exegesis, letting the scripture speak for itself, frontwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.37
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

 My question here is whether Reformed writers have laid out the premises or justifications for the skeptical, naturalistic aspect of their reasoning? 

The Reformers came out of Catholicism, and the Catholic clergy were trained in Scholasticism (trying to reconcile faith with reason). So it should not be surprising if John Calvin used that approach in his theology.

"Not so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning, scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions. Scholastic thought is also known for rigorous conceptual analysis and the careful drawing of distinctions." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  36
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   14
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/09/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

Thanks for the reply about the long hair verse, but I wasn't looking for an explanation of it, just using it as an example to  try to understand what you were fishing for, did not at all mean to derail the topic that you brought up.

 

No, I know what you mean Omegaman, and so what you said was not bad. In a way Paul was reasoning by nature to show that men should wear shorter hair, but that is not what I meant by naturalistic, but instead I meant picking a naturalistic answer over a supernatural explanation. A better example I guess would be when people following J.Mede's example would say things like "Demons aren't actually real; there's a natural explanation for things; demons were just a way people talked about ordinary mental illness back in Bible times."

I am trying to think how I could have posed the question better, Omega. Let me know if you can think up a couple ways.

Edited by rakow
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  57
  • Topic Count:  1,546
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  10,320
  • Content Per Day:  1.42
  • Reputation:   12,323
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/15/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/05/1951

For me, pose the question as if I am ten years old!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  36
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   14
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/09/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

For me, pose the question as if I am ten years old!

OK, how about this:
I think people stopped believing in Santa not just if they caught their parents hiding presents, but if they figured Santa Claus couldn't fit down the chimney.

Isn't that holding Santa to materialistic, naturalistic criteria to judge if he really goes down chimneys?

 

When we say that the bishop in Switzerland didn't have a supernatural vision of the angels and apostle Peter or that Mary didn't bless the spring, aren't we using a kind of naturalistic test to debunk it too? When the major Reformed theologian J. Mede implies that people in the Bible didn't have actual demons, isn't he using materialistic criteria to say that?

 

I am trying to see if Reformed writers ever explained this, instead of just saying that they were using "common sense".

Because some other people use common sense to think that there were real demons in Bible times or that the bishop had a real vision. So I am trying to see what the reasoning is.

Edited by rakow
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,185
  • Content Per Day:  0.27
  • Reputation:   667
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  03/28/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/19/1971

Man this thread is way over my head it seems. Sounds like you are saying Calvinist teachers look for natural explanation for supernatural things in scripture most of the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  59
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,402
  • Content Per Day:  0.99
  • Reputation:   2,154
  • Days Won:  28
  • Joined:  02/10/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/26/1971

Two words: spiritually discerned

A few more words:  The carnal mind follows after men not God even though they have the scriptures.  Consider the Pharisees.  Their was a Calvin amongst them for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...