I'm not sure looking for a "philosopher" is quite the right word here. Calvin's approach was not shaped by an abstract philosophy (not of "determinism" nor any other purely philosophical approach), but by his understanding of Scripture. So far as the THEOLOGICAL system that characterizes his reading of Scripture, he was an Augustinian.
(For that matter, Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, and theologically the Protestant Reformation might be fairly characterized as an "Augustinian revival". Example of Luther's view -- in response to Erasmus, he wrote a book called *The Bondage of the Will*, which contended, as did Augustine, Calvin, et.al., that the will of fallen/sinful humanity was in bondage to sin, not wanting to please God, so that only the elect, whom God had graciously chosen to draw, could or would respond to the gospel.)
Back to the "philosophy" -- if you try to categorize Calvin and the rest as "determinists" it doesn't work very well. Key things that philosophical determinists would argue for as 'consistent' with their system are NOT things Calvin (et.al.) would accept, because he did not believe Scripture taught them. (So, for example, Calvinists believe in human 'free agency' and responsibility.)
(That can be frustrating to a philosopher, who asks how you reconcile all these things. The answer of the Calvinist, summed up by Calvinist preacher Charles Spurgeon --"I never try to reconcile friends." The notion is that GOD's ways are beyond ours such that things that to US appear to be contradictory are not really... but since we are not God we cannot see how it all fits together. Our call is to faithfully present what Scripture teaches and accept the mysteries.)
Another thing to consider -- a read through Calvin's magnum opus, *The Institutes of the Christian Religion* demonstrates that the common claim that he built his 'whole system' on 'predestination' is quite mistaken. Though he held the belief (as did Luther), he was more often concerned with and focused on OTHER 'central teachings' of the gospel. Thus the book expends MUCH more effort on the doctrine of justification than on issues related to predestination. This too shows that trying to understand Calvin as, first of all, a determinist, simply will not do.
Finally, I suspect your characterization of Calvin(ism) is based on one specific set of doctrines often summarized by T-U-L-I-P. This is an important set of doctrines... though Calvin never specifically discussed them all together quite like this. (They also reflect the teachings of the early 16th century catechisms and confessions of the Reformed churches.) In fact, even those who learned from him ONLY formulated them in this way when they sought to respond to a set of contrary teachings published by students of Jacob Arminius (two generations after Calvin).
Though Calvinists do hold to these teachings, and regard them as important expressions of the sovereign freedom of God and central to the gospel being of God's FREE grace (from his love, not earned by someone's being better than others), they are not the whole of the "system". (Also, as noted above, Luther and other Augustinians, hold to the same general viewpoint, even if they don't always work it out in quite the same way.)
2007-10-17 07:38:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by bruhaha 7
·
0⤊
0⤋