Calvinist conundrum!

[mark_a]

In this context though, we don’t really know what the Puritians thought sex because they didn’t talk about it. They were very “fruitful” and multiplied so we know that they knew about it. They had much more to say about love and so the article I read tried to pull off that aspect of their thinking in regards to sex.

I don’t know squat about Puritanism, but I bet they had a very high regard for life and the acts that brings it to us.

 

[Augsburg1530]

If you are refering to election, than I would point out that the Formula of Concord offers a very strong view of divine election

No, not referring to election; I’m referring to limited atonement.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Well first off it is epistomological in the sense that it seeks to answer questions that contemporary philosophers are asking about knowledge, beleifs, and justification in beleifs. Plantinga in particuler explores the concept of warrant. In other words when is someone warranted to hold to a belief, whether we know if it is true or not? That is that someone could every reason to beleive something even if we find out later that the beleif is wrong. This technicaly can establish burdens or proof with regards to certian basic beleifs, Plantinga then argues that beleif in God is one of these basic beleifs. Like I said I don’t completly follow him, I like some of his stuff but I prefer Van Til to anyone.

Here is what “warrant” is, according to Platinga:

To attribute warrant to a belief is to appraise that belief, and to appraise it favorably … to say that a belief is warranted or justified for a person is to evaluate it or him (or both) positively…

Notice that warrant is subjective. It is based on subjective evaluation. Adolph Hitler is going to have his own standard by which he evaluates the rights of Jews to exist; Stalin is going to have his own standard by which he evaluates theism and democracy. There is no way to tell whether your standard is better than Hitler’s or Stalin’s; all are equal. The three of you will just shout “your beliefs are not warranted” all day long. Eventually we need some objective standard by which we can label you good and the others evil.

Also no one is discounting the use of evidence or argument, just exploring other facets to the question of Apologetics and seeking new answers to old questions. In my 11 years of practicing Apologetics in an ametuer sense I have never seen a better method than Presupositionalism, it destroys the very foundations the Atheist would even seek to make an argument on. We argue that their worldview cannot even explain and justify the existance of reason itself. … Also I think it a little unfair to blame “Calvinism” for the enduring problem of atheism, such a claim is on the side of impossible to prove, since no atheist has ever to my knowledge mounted a credible defense against the presupositional argument.

The atheist is going to tell you what I just told you about your whole epistemology being subjective, but without charity. He will extol the virtues of objective truth derived from science. And then he is going to attack presuppositionalism itself by pitting the Bible against science, probably starting with the Genesis creation account.

As a Catholic, I don’t even have to fight that battle because I recognize that God is the author of both the Bible and the laws of physics, and that He has established an authoritative interpreter to reconcile the two—the Church. As a presuppositionalist, you don’t have that luxury; either the Bible OR the laws of physics is your fundamental truth and the authority of the Church is something you reject outright.

In fact I say that Catholics and Reformed can at least Platonicaly agree to fight all unbeleif with loving care and rational reflection, your method being different from mine. It will be hard to “retire” Calvinism because like Catholics, Lutherans, and unlike the average Evangelacal we tend to be pretty educated. We are not Fundementalist so we don’t fall prey to their problems.

The problem is that the Calvinist education is subjective. Subjective truth won’t cut it in a scientific world. And the kind of subjectivism that results when the Catholic intellectual heritage is excised from history is the reason why the resulting “Christianity” has been so caricatured by the atheists.

 

[jwright82]

No, not referring to election; I’m referring to limited atonement.

Oh o.k. my bad. Well it is the same as far as locating it withen the Covenent of Grace, we are a Covenenant community whom God has “definantly atoned the sins of (another way of saying limited atonement is definantl atonement)”. Sure Christ’s death could have saved everyone but it definantly saved only those who beleive, who are withen the Covenenat of Grace, whether they realize it or not.

 

[jwright82]

Here is what “warrant” is, according to Platinga:

To attribute warrant to a belief is to appraise that belief, and to appraise it favorably … to say that a belief is warranted or justified for a person is to evaluate it or him (or both) positively…

Notice that warrant is subjective. It is based on subjective evaluation. Adolph Hitler is going to have his own standard by which he evaluates the rights of Jews to exist; Stalin is going to have his own standard by which he evaluates theism and democracy. There is no way to tell whether your standard is better than Hitler’s or Stalin’s; all are equal. The three of you will just shout “your beliefs are not warranted” all day long. Eventually we need some objective standard by which we can label you good and the others evil.

I have the same criticism of him as well, it is too subject. I thought this whole time you were asking me to explain what Reformed Epistomology is, not what I thought about it. He does nicley answer some contemporary philosophical questions but his thinking is too problematic for me.

The atheist is going to tell you what I just told you about your whole epistemology being subjective, but without charity. He will extol the virtues of objective truth derived from science. And then he is going to attack presuppositionalism itself by pitting the Bible against science, probably starting with the Genesis creation account.

As a Catholic, I don’t even have to fight that battle because I recognize that God is the author of both the Bible and the laws of physics, and that He has established an authoritative interpreter to reconcile the two—the Church. As a presuppositionalist, you don’t have that luxury; either the Bible OR the laws of physics is your fundamental truth and the authority of the Church is something you reject outright.

Well actually no we beleive in creation just as much as you do. To answer your hypothetical atheist I would ask him why he relys so heavely on science? I would remind him about the problem of induction and show him that only by assuming the God of christianity can we resolve the problem and so no atheist attempt will ever resolve that problem, thus in the end all the atheist can do is have “faith” in science and “hope” that the laws of physics don’t majically change tommorow. We christians beleive in in an all powerful God who regulates nature so we have no problem.

The problem is that the Calvinist education is subjective. Subjective truth won’t cut it in a scientific world. And the kind of subjectivism that results when the Catholic intellectual heritage is excised from history is the reason why the resulting “Christianity” has been so caricatured by the atheists.

Don’t confuse Reformed Epistomology with Calvinism. In many respects they are not theologically Reformed.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Oh o.k. my bad. Well it is the same as far as locating it withen the Covenent of Grace, we are a Covenenant community whom God has “definantly atoned the sins of (another way of saying limited atonement is definantl atonement)”. Sure Christ’s death could have saved everyone but it definantly saved only those who beleive, who are withen the Covenenat of Grace, whether they realize it or not.

jw, objectively speaking, how do you know He died for you?

 

[jwright82]

jw, objectively speaking, how do you know He died for you?

Well objectivly speaking it is faith and the Covenant of Grace. I have Faith in the promises of God, which comprise the covenenat, that is how I objectivly “know”. Yes you can claim that faith is subjective but that is missing Luther and Calvin’s point here that only a christian will beleive in the promises of God, only a christian will seek to live a godly life in response to that. Sure people can join the church and pretend to beleive but in the end, between them and God they are not actually beleivers. Isn’t faith an essential part of Catholocism as well?

 

[Augsburg1530]

Well objectivly speaking it is faith and the Covenant of Grace. I have Faith in the promises of God, which comprise the covenenat, that is how I objectivly “know”. Yes you can claim that faith is subjective but that is missing Luther and Calvin’s point here that only a christian will beleive in the promises of God, only a christian will seek to live a godly life in response to that. Sure people can join the church and pretend to beleive but in the end, between them and God they are not actually beleivers. Isn’t faith an essential part of Catholocism as well?

So you believe that Christ died for you because you believe He died for you? Do you see the difference between that and He died for you whether you believe it or not?

I’m not Catholic, but yes, of course faith is important. The difference between Lutheran and Reformed theology in regards to this, however, are substantive. I have faith in Christ because He died for me.** To Reformed theology, you believe that He died for you, therefore you have faith that He died for you. One is objective, the other places assurance squarely on the self, because until you determine that you have faith, you have no way of knowing that you’ve been atoned for. It’s not a place I would want to be in if my faith ever falters.

 

[jwright82]

So you believe that Christ died for you because you believe He died for you? Do you see the difference between that and He died for you whether you believe it or not?

I’m not Catholic, but yes, of course faith is important. The difference between Lutheran and Reformed theology in regards to this, however, are substantive. I have faith in Christ because He died for me.** To Reformed theology, you believe that He died for you, therefore you have faith that He died for you. One is objective, the other places assurance squarely on the self, because until you determine that you have faith, you have no way of knowing that you’ve been atoned for. It’s not a place I would want to be in if my faith ever falters.

No I know that he died for me. We view faith as a gift, just like you Lutherans do if I remember correctly, from God. So on the one hand I would say that objectivly I know because God has determined me to know. You asked how I know, that is how through faith. Now the Covenant of Grace is where the Gospel is located. Christ died to redeem his people and through regeneration I am one of his people. I have the Covenant elements of Baptism, The Lord’s Supper, and the preaching of the Word to strenghthen my faith. But the objectivity is in the Covenant of Grace, faith is a subjective response to that.

 

[benidict]

I would say following Calvin and Luther that the certianty comes soly from the promises of God. That is all, the morbid introspection is an unfortuanant side affect of being human, not Reformed. God made promises and that is enough for me. I now am expecting to live a life in obediance to Christ for what He has done for me. So Lutherans, Reformed, Orthodox, and Catholic all agree that being a Christian has moral demands on the life of the beleiver, so much for easy-beleivism (which rubs us the wrong way just as much as it does Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

hi jwright. i was raised Christian reformed. i would not say my " morbid intorspection" came from an unfortunate side effect of being human. it had more to do with not being able to submit to the man made rules laid down by the church and my parents. on top of obeying the Gospel, there were a host of other rules and regualations laid down. that if you didnt follow them…while not implicitly stated, you would burn forever. what a loving God the calvinist follow. i would toss and turn at night from the age of ten, worrying if i was going to go to hell. if you rode on a boat on sunday, if you rode a bike on sunday, if you didnt learn your heidleburg cathechism by wrote…if you didnt make profession of faith by a certain age…wow! talk about anxiety. i joined with the reformed baptist when i came of age. talk about out of the frying pan into the fire. if there is anything worse, it is a fundamentalist practicing calvinism. if not for Catholicism and the sanity it provides, and the visions i recieved that lead me to them. i would not even be a Christian right now. i think the seeds planted for all this anxiety came from Calvin himself. Peace

 

[jwright82]

hi jwright. i was raised Christian reformed. i would not say my " morbid intorspection" came from an unfortunate side effect of being human. it had more to do with not being able to submit to the man made rules laid down by the church and my parents. on top of obeying the Gospel, there were a host of other rules and regualations laid down. that if you didnt follow them…while not implicitly stated, you would burn forever. what a loving God the calvinist follow. i would toss and turn at night from the age of ten, worrying if i was going to go to hell. if you rode on a boat on sunday, if you rode a bike on sunday, if you didnt learn your heidleburg cathechism by wrote…if you didnt make profession of faith by a certain age…wow! talk about anxiety. i joined with the reformed baptist when i came of age. talk about out of the frying pan into the fire. if there is anything worse, it is a fundamentalist practicing calvinism. if not for Catholicism and the sanity it provides, and the visions i recieved that lead me to them. i would not even be a Christian right now. i think the seeds planted for all this anxiety came from Calvin himself. Peace

While I cannoy speak to your specific situation I would point out that one bad apple doesn’t mean that the whole bunch is bad. Since I do not know the specifics of your situation I can only try to shed light on the theory behind what you experienced and why it went wrong in my opinion. The Reformed churches have the idea of the regulative principle. Scripture regulates our worship, moral lives, theological opinions, etc. We affirm no such simple fundementalist type we are just bible beleiving christians and if the good book don’t say it we don’t beleive it. That is far too simplicistic for us, we recognize the complexity of biblical issues. But we affirm that if you cannot base an opinion in scripture than it is wrong.

The regulative principle applied to how we live can sometimes seem strange but I would wager that Catholics have their own religous duties and opinions unique to their tradition. Respective the christian Sabbath and learning the Chatechism are Reformed distinctives but it sounds as though your church took it to extreme. We do have in this country great ecclesastical mobility, and I think that is a good thing. If you take, like I tend to, a laxer attitude with regard to the Sabbath than yhere are reformed churches out there to match. I think that you wentto a fundementalist type reformed church, which is different.

J. Gresham Machem was one of the great enemies of liberalism in the 20th century. Most people count him among the fundementalist, but he was weary of that link. He prefered to be labled reformed. He viewed fundementalism as legalistic, perfectionistic, anti-intelectual, and theologicaly shallow. When fundementalism gets into a reformed church these things happen and Christianity becomes more about a list of don’ts than about the sweetness of the Gospel and our living lives in obediance to God.

 

[benidict]

While I cannoy speak to your specific situation I would point out that one bad apple doesn’t mean that the whole bunch is bad. Since I do not know the specifics of your situation I can only try to shed light on the theory behind what you experienced and why it went wrong in my opinion. The Reformed churches have the idea of the regulative principle. Scripture regulates our worship, moral lives, theological opinions, etc. We affirm no such simple fundementalist type we are just bible beleiving christians and if the good book don’t say it we don’t beleive it. That is far too simplicistic for us, we recognize the complexity of biblical issues. But we affirm that if you cannot base an opinion in scripture than it is wrong.

The regulative principle applied to how we live can sometimes seem strange but I would wager that Catholics have their own religous duties and opinions unique to their tradition. Respective the christian Sabbath and learning the Chatechism are Reformed distinctives but it sounds as though your church took it to extreme. We do have in this country great ecclesastical mobility, and I think that is a good thing. If you take, like I tend to, a laxer attitude with regard to the Sabbath than yhere are reformed churches out there to match. I think that you wentto a fundementalist type reformed church, which is different.

J. Gresham Machem was one of the great enemies of liberalism in the 20th century. Most people count him among the fundementalist, but he was weary of that link. He prefered to be labled reformed. He viewed fundementalism as legalistic, perfectionistic, anti-intelectual, and theologicaly shallow. When fundementalism gets into a reformed church these things happen and Christianity becomes more about a list of don’ts than about the sweetness of the Gospel and our living lives in obediance to God.

thank you for your answer my friend. and may i ask which Reformed tradition you are a part of? wonder if you have ever heard of the Dutch Reformed? the more depressed you are, the more Holy you are. not saying that to be funny. ive seen it. no joy what so ever in their lives. at least not the ones ive met. and the psychological pressure is incredible. growing up, we did know some people who were of the Reformed Church in america, i think its called. they were more relaxed than the CRC. are you a member of this association. thanks. yes there are duties in Catholicism that are unique to our tradition. i would have to say they are biblical too. such as, a heavy emphasis on serving. it is not pushed on us. but there is so much to do to serve God and our fellow man, that you almost have limitless opportunities. its also a great way to get to know, you brothers and sisters, and form tight knit relationships that can last for life. we also have…BINGO!!! big no no when i was growing up. oooh the evil bingo. gambling you know. of course Sunday attendance is huge. its a mortal sin to intentionally miss it. i miss it here. not due to any fault of my own. thankfully i have good priest around. but who would want to? its a beautiful celebration, of what Christ has done, is doing at present, and is going to do. all wrapped up into one. yes we have more. but these are designed to make us Holy. the rosary, the stations of the Cross, pilgrimages etc. and guess what? if done in the right spirit, they really are benificial. oh yes. cant for get confession. and since the priest is unmarried, he has no one he has to keep secrets from. big advantage. lol! Peace to you and yours. and thank you for your time.

 

[jwright82]

thank you for your answer my friend. and may i ask which Reformed tradition you are a part of? wonder if you have ever heard of the Dutch Reformed? the more depressed you are, the more Holy you are. not saying that to be funny. ive seen it. no joy what so ever in their lives. at least not the ones ive met. and the psychological pressure is incredible. growing up, we did know some people who were of the Reformed Church in america, i think its called. they were more relaxed than the CRC. are you a member of this association. thanks. yes there are duties in Catholicism that are unique to our tradition. i would have to say they are biblical too. such as, a heavy emphasis on serving. it is not pushed on us. but there is so much to do to serve God and our fellow man, that you almost have limitless opportunities. its also a great way to get to know, you brothers and sisters, and form tight knit relationships that can last for life. we also have…BINGO!!! big no no when i was growing up. oooh the evil bingo. gambling you know. of course Sunday attendance is huge. its a mortal sin to intentionally miss it. i miss it here. not due to any fault of my own. thankfully i have good priest around. but who would want to? its a beautiful celebration, of what Christ has done, is doing at present, and is going to do. all wrapped up into one. yes we have more. but these are designed to make us Holy. the rosary, the stations of the Cross, pilgrimages etc. and guess what? if done in the right spirit, they really are benificial. oh yes. cant for get confession. and since the priest is unmarried, he has no one he has to keep secrets from. big advantage. lol! Peace to you and yours. and thank you for your time.

Glad to hear it. I am Prebyterian in denomonation but theologicaly I am more in tuned with the Dutch Reformed tradition. Yes it sounds like you went through a lot but not all Reformed churches are that way. I think that fundementalism is the culprit here but the world used to be much stricter for everyone, they lived much more orderd lives, and that seems weird to us now a days. These could be sociological too, I don’t know I could only guess. I don’t have any qualms about gambling, in moderation. The Westminster Confession of Faith has a wonderful chapter on the liberty of conscience regarding moral issues that the scriptures are not completly clear on. This principle has benn disregarded by many very conservative Reformed people, and it would be unfair to call them fundementalist.

 

[Contarini]

thank you for your answer my friend. and may i ask which Reformed tradition you are a part of? wonder if you have ever heard of the Dutch Reformed? the more depressed you are, the more Holy you are. not saying that to be funny. ive seen it. no joy what so ever in their lives. at least not the ones ive met. and the psychological pressure is incredible. growing up, we did know some people who were of the Reformed Church in america, i think its called. they were more relaxed than the CRC.

Yes, although the CRC has loosened up a lot, and apparently there’s some talk in the RCA of merging with them.

My experience with the CRC has been very different–I visited the CRC congregation in South Bend where many of the evangelical professors at Notre Dame attended. This was back in 1995 when my experience of evangelicalism was largely of its more fundamentalist wing. I was blown away by the experience of a different kind of evangelicalism–intellectually serious, committed to orthodox Christianity, concerned about social justice, not afraid to embrace God’s good natural gifts. . . . I wouldn’t put all of this down to the one visit to a CRC congregation but to the folks associated with the Pew Younger Scholars Program, for which I was interviewing at the time. Still, many of these folks attended that congregation and/or had some kind of ties with the CRC. I would say that many of the most positive developments in recent evangelical thought in terms of addressing the culture joyfully and positively have come out of the Kuyperian tradition (Kuyper founded the CRC in the Netherlands in the 19th century).

I understand that folks growing up in or near small CRC congregations in the Midwest have had a very different experience. But all evangelicals owe a great intellectual debt to the CRC, and my own experiences of them have been very positive.

Edwin

 

[jwright82]

I love Kuyper! I like the Kyperian thinker Dooyeweerd much more.