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

12 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

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.

OK, Thanks for explaining, Omegaman.

I had written: "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."
I think that it's forwards to explain your basis for judging texts. A person has certain presuppositions. Leaving them stated or unstated is not backwards or forwards.

When a person turns to a text saying something like "the spiritual rock followed the Israelites, and the rock was Christ", (Cf. 1 Cor 10:3-4), the reader has a choice of how to read this. Paul doesn't say about that verse explicitly "this verse I just wrote means..." The verse requires interpreting. And the reader has a choice of whether to read that naturally or supernaturally. A person who strongly prefers a naturalistic interpretation will pick that materialistic reading.

Of course, he might not admit that he is picking it for that reason or being materialistic, but that naturalistic preference can still be his guiding spirit. So in Calvin's case, his reasoning was that hard, visible, physical "rocks" don't follow people, so the word must not mean "rock" but some other piece of nature - in this case a stream - that does move.

It appears to be what happened that he read the text itself as saying that a visible rock was actually moving in the desert, but then he thought that this doesn't happen, so "rock" must mean another word instead of "rock". And instead of explaining that he was using naturalistic criteria and explaining his premises, he just announced that his conclusion about rock = stream was, in his words, "abundantly manifest".

It's like if I told you that I saw a ball of fire fly through the air in the Texas desert and you, not being familiar with such phenomena, said that it was "abundantly manifest" that I must mean another object instead, but without ever explaining that you were using your experience in nature as your criteria.

So I am looking to see if Calvinist writers ever explained their premises when they picked a naturalistic or sensory explanation of religious phenomena or claims.

Edited by rakow
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

11 hours ago, Ezra said:

 

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." 

This is a great explanation by you, Ezra.

The quote you gave is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism

It's a good point that Calvin came our of a movement that used scholasticism to reach conclusions about religion and reality. Knowledge was to be reached by "rigorous" reasoning, as it explains.

However, to simply leave it at that is not enough. The Catholic writers who came before Calvin and who used scholasticism were fine with proposing that the preincarnate Jesus was a "spiritual rock" who was actually following the Israelites in the desert like the cloud and the pillar of fire did. They were OK as a matter of their logic with accepting that Jesus was supernaturally present there in the desert.

Likewise, the scholastic Catholics did not have a logic problem with thinking that there were real demon beings who Christian exorcists succeeded in casting out with prayers in the medieval period. When I think of the issue purely in terms of logic and fully allow for the supernatural, I don't have a problem thinking that Christian exorcists succeed occasionally in their work.

So it seems to be not just a matter of Calvin using scholasticism - and you are right that he did include that method -, but also a matter of Calvin reaching certain conclusions based on his strong emphasis on the natural order like John Hesselnik wrote about in the quote I gave in my first message above.

So I am looking to see if Reformed writers have explained more about this.

Thanks again for writing in about this.

 

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

5 hours ago, saved34 said:

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?

Saved34,

I should have made it clearer. You are well on the right track.

Calvin over and over came back to an emphasis on the "natural order" like Hesselnik explains, and he used a test of "reasonableness" vs. "absurdity"/"foolishness" on supernatural issues that he disagreed with Lutherans and Catholics about. He took the position that the Catholics and Lutherans were "ignorant".

Now, I am not necessarily arguing here that Calvin is wrong when he says that something is just natural or that it didn't really happen. I am trying to unpack his logic and find out the premises behind these kinds of judgments. For example, why does he call the Catholics' claim that they have a group of exorcists who  cast out demons "a compound of ignorant and stupid falsehoods"? How does he know that the Catholics can never show anyone reasonably that they succeeded in their work?

It seems to me that the unstated reason for his intense skepticism is that casting out demons is not something that can be proven in a material way.

In my opening post I just gave three examples for the sake of brevity, but I can think of seven or so others. It is hard for me to claim to you that Calvinists look for natural explanations most of the time overall. However, when Calvin does argue with Catholics and Lutherans over whether something supernatural happened, it stands out to me personally that Calvin always picks the naturalistic explanation.

I am not trying to claim that Reformed don't care about the Bible or that they don't believe that God can do anything supernatural. But in the late renaissance when their movement started, whenever they had a definite argument against Lutherans and Catholics on a question of the supernatural, they had a very strong pattern of picking the natural explanation.

It's true that nowadays there is a section of Reformed Christians who believe we are in the End Times and they have supernatural expectations about it. But this is a different mentality than Reformed had in the 16th century. Calvin never even wrote a commentary on Revelation, even though he wrote detailed commentaries on almost every other book in the Bible.

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

7 hours ago, gdemoss said:

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.

Gdemoss,

The way that you think about the scriptures appeals to me on an emotional level. Based on your answer, you seem to be quite open to the supernatural, having a personal preference to accept it when that is the normal meaning of scripture. Accepting scripture's real meaning, supernatural or not is your goal, and supernaturalism is not a major obstacle to you.

You seem like the kind of person who, after Jesus says in John 6 " I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world... Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. ", and Jesus follows this by asking "Doth this offend you?", would be the kind of person who would answer: "Whatever you say, Jesus, I agree".

In the verses leading up to Jesus' question, Jesus never specified whether he was talking about something supernatural or not.

The famous Reformed writer Gill says about Jesus' question and about John 6's statement that "many disciples" left Jesus because they couldn't handle this teaching:

Quote

 

he said unto them, does this offend you?

or trouble you? cannot you get over this? cannot you understand it? or account for it? if not, how will you be able to digest some other things, or reconcile them to your minds, which are less known, and more unexpected, and will appear at first sight more surprising?

What and if ye shall see the son of man, ascend up where he was before?

his flesh and blood were not to be eaten in a corporeal sense; in which sense they understood him: and he hereby suggests, that if it was difficult to receive, and hard to be understood, and was surprising and incredible, that he should come down from heaven, as bread, to be eat and fed upon; it would be much more so to them to be told, that he who was in so mean and lowly a form, should ascend up into heaven.
(SOURCE: http://biblehub.com/john/6-62.htm)

 

 

In other words, Jesus was saying that if the "many disciples" could not handle the teaching that they must eat Jesus' body corporeally (with their mouths), then their mentality couldn't handle the teaching of Jesus' bodily Ascension either.

In contrast, in being so open to the supernatural, you seem to be quite open to Jesus' teachings, whether they seem materialistically "absurd" or not.

This raises a fourth issue in which the Reformed approach reveals a naturalistic reading of the text: the question of the Eucharistic bread. 

Liturgy_St_James_1.jpg

Communion elements

Luther took the view that Jesus' flesh had become a spirit body, and so that Jesus' body in "spirit mode" could be in communion bread, just like he proposed that it went in and through the wall in John 20. Paul talks about spirit bodies in 1 Corinthians 15:44 : "They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies."

Calvin's view though was that since Jesus' body was human and in heaven, it was impossible for it to be "invisible" on earth in bread, as he explained in his Institutes.

For me, if I accept a supernatural idea of Jesus having a spirit body that can go into matter, I don't have a problem as an issue of logic with Jesus' spirit body going into communion bread. However, if I accept a stricter naturalistic view of Jesus' body, then I would be sympathetic to Calvin's view. In normal modern naturalistic perceptions of the human body, we don't think of it becoming invisible or going in spirit mode into bread. So for me to advocate the latter, Reformed view that Jesus is not actually in communion bread, it would lead me to ask why I should rely on more naturalistic premises on this topic.

 

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

Okay, I am out. I think I am literally to stupid for this thread.

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

11 hours ago, rakow said:

Gdemoss,

The way that you think about the scriptures appeals to me on an emotional level. Based on your answer, you seem to be quite open to the supernatural, having a personal preference to accept it when that is the normal meaning of scripture. Accepting scripture's real meaning, supernatural or not is your goal, and supernaturalism is not a major obstacle to you.

You seem like the kind of person who, after Jesus says in John 6 " I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world... Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. ", and Jesus follows this by asking "Doth this offend you?", would be the kind of person who would answer: "Whatever you say, Jesus, I agree".

In the verses leading up to Jesus' question, Jesus never specified whether he was talking about something supernatural or not.

The famous Reformed writer Gill says about Jesus' question and about John 6's statement that "many disciples" left Jesus because they couldn't handle this teaching:

 

In other words, Jesus was saying that if the "many disciples" could not handle the teaching that they must eat Jesus' body corporeally (with their mouths), then their mentality couldn't handle the teaching of Jesus' bodily Ascension either.

In contrast, in being so open to the supernatural, you seem to be quite open to Jesus' teachings, whether they seem materialistically "absurd" or not.

This raises a fourth issue in which the Reformed approach reveals a naturalistic reading of the text: the question of the Eucharistic bread. 

Liturgy_St_James_1.jpg

Communion elements

Luther took the view that Jesus' flesh had become a spirit body, and so that Jesus' body in "spirit mode" could be in communion bread, just like he proposed that it went in and through the wall in John 20. Paul talks about spirit bodies in 1 Corinthians 15:44 : "They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies."

Calvin's view though was that since Jesus' body was human and in heaven, it was impossible for it to be "invisible" on earth in bread, as he explained in his Institutes.

For me, if I accept a supernatural idea of Jesus having a spirit body that can go into matter, I don't have a problem as an issue of logic with Jesus' spirit body going into communion bread. However, if I accept a stricter naturalistic view of Jesus' body, then I would be sympathetic to Calvin's view. In normal modern naturalistic perceptions of the human body, we don't think of it becoming invisible or going in spirit mode into bread. So for me to advocate the latter, Reformed view that Jesus is not actually in communion bread, it would lead me to ask why I should rely on more naturalistic premises on this topic.

 

This is very meaty indeed!  Thank you for the provocation to thought. :)

I am unlearned and ignorant.  Yet, I diligently seek God believing that he is the rewarder of those who do so. 

That said, there is spiritual and there is temporal.  That which can be seen is temporal.  That which cannot be seen is spiritual.  But, the "effects" seen in the temporal are from the spiritual.

A human body is animated by a spirit and without the spirit is dead.  And so with animals.  The main difference being that a human has the capacity to deny the spirit seeking to move it through the eyes of the understanding that were opened in the garden of eden.

A woman I know had an affair on her husband who she agreed by covenant to be faithful.  She began after a time her monthly blood began but wouldn't end.  She later confessed her sin and the blood stanched.  Can you "see" the spiritual at work in this?  We speak by a spirit and she agreed by a covenant to be faithful and broke her vow so there was an effect upon her temporal body.  The spirit of adultry tried her and was successful in destroying her vow.

To help you understand my stance upon transubstantiation allow me to explain below.

When a man comes in unto his wife they become one flesh and the marriage is 'consumed' other wise known as the consumation of marriage, as it is written a man who loves his wife loves himself.  When the spirit of Christ comes upon a person the marriage is consumed and the two become one spirit. Yet, cannot a husband and wife fight?  Yes, they can ultimately consume one another.  Can one war against the spirit of Christ?  As it is written, my spirit shall not always strive against man for he is also flesh.

Spirit, pneuma, breath, air, these are one and can be found through all things.  Spirit is in the center of every rock, bread, tree etc.  How shall one then tell me that the bread becomes his flesh after the blessing but before the eating?  Or even the wine his blood?  For the scripture says for if him and to him and through him are all things, as well as, Christ is all and all in all.  All things upheld by the word of his power.  

So then what is his flesh I must consume?  What is his blood I must drink?  For we are one body and I am not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together in holy communion intimately interacting with one another using the gifts of the spirit to profit each other being made to drink into one spirit being of one mind as it is written.  Yes, I consumate with the body of Christ in communion showing such unity in the breaking of bread that reveals his death until he comes.  We remind ourselves and show the world that he has died yet we are alive in him and our hearts are knit together in his death and subsequent life in us through his spirit that annimates our bodies and makes us his bride.

Bread is bread.  Wine is wine.  Christ is all and in all.  I commune with the body.  

Furthermore, when Paul spoke to the Corinthians about this matter he was addressing their lack of union.  For he said one is drunken and another eats well while yet others have nothing to eat.  This was not love, unity and communion of the body of Christ.  This was not Christ's spirit making all things decent and in order but riotous unruly behavior.  He used the simplicity of Christ's example of the breaking of bread and the passing of wine to show that they were communing together in peace over his impending death, buial and ressurection. 

Every temporal thing is a manifestation of the spirit. God said and it was.  That which is seen comes from that which is not seen.  And all is kept in store by the power of his word.  He said if I beleived in Christ that I would be saved.  It us so, yet my temporal flesh dies. I am made alive, quickened in the spirit, renewed daily in his image within as it is written.  But the world and the works therein are going to be burned up also as it is written.  Things are written after they have been said of God because God is righting all things.  Therefore I am moved with fear to build the house of God and be clothed with the righteous works of Christ fir the scripture says that he who does righteousness is righeteous even as he is righteous.

So you see?  The temporal is temporary and exposes thise things that are spiritual that will eventually be hurt of the second death which is the lake of fire.  Once all is purged then permanent peace will ensue and that which is of God will be in perfect unity.  The manna from heaven was the food of angels and we who are changed and spend eternity with him shall forever eat, drink and be merry with he whom made us through his word.

But if you and I be the body of Christ as it is written that we are his flesh then how say some that the bread becomes his flesh to be consumed?  Nay, those who would walked amongst us are warned against sinning against their own body, the body of Christ.  For it is written that who ever eats or drinks unworthily will suffer and possibly die. 

Let us head the warning and consume the body without hurting it lest we be consumed ourselves for God will jusge his people and vengeance is his for he will recompense.

Let the blind lead the blind.  We shall follow Christ for we hear his voice and will not follow another.

Peace.

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

gdemoss: 

Thanks for your lengthy response. The spiritual things you said are nice, although I am not sure how that would prove or disprove transubstantiation, other than what you said " Bread is bread.  Wine is wine. " This though I think cannot be said in an absolute way under the Biblical ideas, since Jesus says "this is my body", as opposed to, say, "this is only bread". As a matter of exegesis, I don't know anyplace in the Bible where Jesus pointed to a specific, real life object and said "this is", naming a second specific real life object and meant it only metaphorically.

Anyway, I don't want to make too much out of this one issue. I don't have a big opinion on the Catholic v Lutheran debate as to which side is Biblical. Only if I accept a strong materialistic preference in interpreting the Bible would I prefer the Calvinist/Zwinglian answer about the food to be the Biblical one.

But my point in the thread is just to see a pattern on maybe a dozen issues where Calvin or other Reformed pick the materialistic side of debates involving the supernatural. There are many writings that describe Calvin as using Reason and the Natural Order. But I haven't found anything explaining why as a rule in the Reformed system the material and naturalistic explanations for supernatural Christian traditions are by default and as a pattern seen as strongly preferable.

A good example is where Calvin writes about the Lutherans and the debate over the moving rock:

 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.

As a matter of normal reading of literature, once I have no problem with seeing events in it as supernatural, if I accept Calvin's claim that the rock here is a visible object, I have no problem in imagining that it miraculously moved. I don't see why it is so "abundantly manifest" that the word "rock" means "stream of water"  to the point where the Lutheran question about this is "foolish". As a matter of common speech, I don't see how the words can be the same.

UNLPLq.gif

Luke Skywalker moving a rock with the Force.

If Luke can do this, I don't know why as a matter of the paranormal this could not be meant to happen in the Torah if Paul actually said that a physical object, "rock", was following them and moving.

Let me give a fifth example besides those I've listed. Are you familiar with the story of the dry bones rising in Ezekiel 37? Why cannot this story be an actual prophecy about a real, physical resurrection?

 

john-roddam-spencer-stanhope-the-vision-

Reformed theologian William Young writes in John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel:

 
Quote
 

Unlike many earlier exegetes he[Calvin] studiously avoids apocalyptic interpretations of 37–48.

The Babylonian exile provides the background of the visions, while Calvin extends the literal sense to include the period until the Incarnation. When application is added to exegesis, Calvin could write, "The soul of a vision is the doctrine itself from whence faith is born." (Commentary on Ex 33:19, as quoted on 108.) Doctrine includes the knowledge of God in revelation. Calvin's view of visionary revelation accounts for the method of preaching in lectio continua (exposition of the book, verse by verse).

The third part of the book contains a splendid analysis of Calvin's treatment of Ezekiel 37–48 introduced by a brief exposition of chapter 36. The vision of the valley of dry bones is not viewed as a prophecy of the resurrection, but as a depiction of the captivity and restoration of Israel with a lesson of hope for the future of the church. The same line of exposition applies to the symbolic act of uniting the two sticks.

Journal: Renaissance Quarterly
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/235034

 

E. A. De Boer, professor of the Theological University of the Reformed Churches, writes the same thing in his book John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: Historical and Hermeneutical Studies :

Quote
 
Quote
 

Before Calvin started his series of sermons and thus his first thorough exposition of Ezekiel, he already had a clear grasp of the meaning of Chapter 37. Not the future resurrection of the dead, but the restitution or restoriation of Israel is promised and pictured. calvin's commentary on Acts reflects the same awareness. In the first volume of 1552 he commented on a resurrection miracle "When Ezekiel represents the liberation of the people under the figure of a resurrection he says "O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord (Ezek 37:4)... some very pointed statements are made on the vision as such. "This vision is a kind of archetype of the resurrection". And "the prophjecy is a vivd and as it were a true to life vision".

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=RR0_7RuCXhgC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq="Ezeki el+37"++calvin+commentary&source=bl&ots=IsCZQ-ouhb&sig=vsYxNo-dvvv9GixewLS7UOIPzzg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj3638o IfMAhUCaD4KHfJxDQAQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q="Ezekiel 37" calvin commentary&f=false

 


In case they mistakenly misrepresented Calvin, it still means that the two Reformed theologians are promoting a reading of Ezekiel 37 that is not a prophecy of a supernatural physical resurrection. I don't know why once we accept the supernatural that such a reading of a physical resurrection being actually predicted is ruled out. Even if the context is Israel, a resurrection still makes sense in the context, as Israel's dead would get physically resurrected too in Judaism's beliefs.
Edited by rakow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...