Ok, so I didn't really want to get into this, because this is Bart's thread. But since this has been a long-standing disagreement between him and me, I will add my small contribution here and then let him carry on. My interest is factual accuracy, as I know Bart's is too. I appreciate his hard work here, and his many years of study. It requires a great commitment to the truth, and a lot of intellectual patience and honesty to challenge oneself as Bart has done, so I don't wish to belittle any of that.
In our private communications about this issue we agreed that our common purpose is to be factually accurate as far as possible. In my opinion, that requires leaning on recognized experts in the field.
My sources are academic, and in most cases not available online. I know that it is a novel concept that we should not just cut and paste from websites, but such is the burden of serious students. There are many misconceptions here about the influences of Greek Philosophy on reformed theology, and I would encourage anyone seriously interested to go and research it for themselves. It will leave you richer in your understanding of modern church history and theology.
As the conclusions that are being made here rest upon these premises, we should look to see if the premises are valid.
Bart and others have said this, by way of premise and/or conclusion:
.... Neo Calvinism indeed isolates texts using the scholastic model prevalent during John Calvin’s day. Mr. Calvin was educated to become a Lawyer and thus his education would have been heavily influence by Greek philosophic logic models and scholastic reasoning. Also, that educational model was the norm for those days and time and the influence of these logic constructs linger on in Neo Calvinism.
BW
2. Calvinism stands apart from several deeply rooted tenets of Historical Christianity.
Agree – this is due to the mode of educational system of the 1500’s thru early 1800’s of that western scholastic model in how it constructs an argument from the position of Lawyer speak and argues from those positions, to win a case. Such model leaves or little or no room, for exploration of new evidence.
It also represents the first comprehensive Systematic Theology. By that, I mean that this was the first major attempt in Christian History to systematically go through the Bible and organize all of the themes to where the intent was to in a comprehensive manner determine what the Scriptures say collectively on any one theme and then attempt to present doctrinal positions from that exercise. In this manner, Calvin's approach was very consistent with his Legal and Philosophical training foundations before he approached this task.
This is one primary area where I think Calvinists either are in denial or honestly don't see that this underlying framework, undoubtedly influenced Calvin's system and the results that his approach generated.
You might take a look at one of the last posts I did tying Calvinism to Greek Philosophy and Determinism. How do you respond and incorporate that into the common claim of Calvinism that it is solely Biblically based and draws it's very methodology out of Scripture? Do you find, for example in the New Testament, a systematic and exhaustive handling of a particular topic where multiple verses are proof-texted to logical syllogisms to infer things that aren't clearly stated in any one portion of Scripture? How is the method employed in Calvinism and His Instsitutes for example, somehow more Biblical and indisputable than the prior 1500 years?
I think part of the reason for that is, as I've stated earlier, that Calvinism is rooted in the methodology of Law and Greek Philosophy.
The tie between Calvin's legal background and the citation from his Institutes which demonstrate him clearly at times drawing from Greek Philosophy indicates a tie.
What's different with Calvin in in the wake of the "rediscovery" of much of this is Calvin not only brought his influences, he adopted wholescale the methods of logic and systematic examination and applied them to Scripture in a manner that made these influences foundational and not just peripheral things that can be observed. Calvin's Institutes was in fact, the first systematic theology ever produced. I'm saying, you can't take a foundational method like that and apply it to Scripture that was written in a different context (with a primarily Eastern mindset) and not come out with some significant changes that are based on the methods used and not just Scripture. Yes we can qualify how Calvin's Divine Determinism carries with it some differences from the determinism of Greek Philosophy. When I look at it however, even while accepting those differences, the practical result is not all that different overall.
Calvin certainly would not have accepted the underlying values and results of Stoicism itself, but clearly he took the methodology and discipline of thought and applied it within the new context to a degree never done before with results that brought about a very different view of God and His working among His people than had existed before.
It's my assertion that Calvin's approach was so radically different historically and methodologically that it applied elements of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law that were not present in the original texts or in the minds and hearts of those who wrote the inspired texts themselves.
BW wrote:
I suggest that before readers begin jumping all over Bart presupposing he has nefarious intent in looking at what historical influences were in the days of Mr Calvin and on him, please rest. This is basic thorough investigative work. It is well worth doing. We are all affected by the age /time period/ education/etc of our own environments and appointed time on earth. By looking at the historical record we can better understand what Mr Calvin meant. That’s all.
So given all of the assertions above about the connection between Calvin and Greek Scholasticism, as well as some of the other statements that appear purely to cast a negative light, I suggest it is factually incorrect. For example, not only was Calvin by any stretch of the imagination not the first one to author a Systematic Theology, he wasn't even the first reformer to do it.
John F. Walvoord, past long-time president of the Dallas Theological Seminary, writes:
Protestant systematic theology had its origin in the early works of the Reformers. Among the first was the Loci Theologici of Melanchthon published in 1521. Zwingli produced his Commentarius de vera et falsa religione in 1525. William Farel brought out his theological manual in 1534 with the title, Summaire briefue declaration daucuns lieux fort necessaires a ung chascun Chrestien pour mettre sa confiance en Dieu et ayder son prochain. The most famous early work was that of John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, first published in 1536, and later entirely rewritten and enlarged through successive editions until the definitive edition of 1559.
Calvin was a staunch critic of Greek Philosophy, and specifically Scholasticism, as which we see above, is the opposite of what is being asserted here. he wrote several polemics against it, and saves some of his best criticism for the Stoics. I will quote from this work:
The Unaccommodated Calvin, by Dr Richard Muller:
http://www.amazon.com/Unaccommodated-Ca ... t_ep_dpt_2 The reviews include these statements: ""Muller's academic treatment places Calvin in his historical context and challenges various misconceptions and rabbit trails in 20th-century Calvin scholarship."--Christianity Today" and ""Muller's scholarship is so strong and his arguments so convincing that future Calvin scholars will only be able to ignore this book at their peril...essential reading for anyone wishing to study Calvin's theology and exegesis, both as a model of critical historical methodology and for it's illumination of Calvin's program and the development of his thought." Sixteenth Century Review". Dr. Muller used the source documents in the original languages, and his work on Calvin is highly regarded.
Dr Muller writes:
The problem of the relationship of Scholasticism to Calvin (and later to Calvinism as well), is complicated moreover, by the tendency of much twentieth century Protestant theology and historiography to view scholasticism as a highly speculative and rationalistic system of thought bound to Aristotelianism and to certain specific theological and philosophical conclusions characteristic of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the primary goal of which was to develop a synthesis of Christian theology and Greek philosophy.
.
Now, since I have sit here and manually type this, I will summarize the rest, but anyone is of course welcome to check the book themselves. That sounds exactly like what we are reading above, and Dr. Muller here goes on to say that to do so is wrong, since the only way to draw that any connection between Calvin and scholasticism is to view scholasticism not as the philosophical framework as is presupposed, but as a dialectical framework that did not prejudice theological conclusions.
So while the methods do influence content, Muller says, it does so "primarily in patterns of exposition and the identification of various sub-issues, as identified by the distinction, but it
does not influence the final result of an argument" (italics Muller)
So we see that the premises being used here to analyze the work of Calvin may not be accurate, and as such, we should also consider the conclusions.
One of those conclusions, that because Calvin was supposedly influenced by Greek philosophy (a questionable assumption, according to Muller), is that the philosophy of determinism is what prompted Calvin to come up with his ideas around predestination.
Muller again (summarized and quoted): When talking about the early chapters of Romans where Paul introduces universal knowledge of the law, in the context of a sinful human race left without excuse, provides the basis for Calvin's expansion into the loci on sin and law. This shift in topic of Calvin in the discussion of sin versus the earlier discussion of law, which happened in the 1539 version of the Institutes, and was retained there in the 1559 (final) version, prompts Muller to write say that it dispels the twentieth century myth that Calvin initially had written about predestination in his doctrine about God, and moved it later into an a-posteriori position to avoid the problems of determinism, among others. Calvin simply never considered these 20th century problems and did not even write about predestination until before 1539, when he added the Pauline studies.
This shows that, contrary to the conclusions reached by others, among which McGrath and Bouwsma, Calvin did not in fact consider any form of Greek determinism when writing about predestination, or he would have done it prior to his 1539 revision, and as part of his doctrine on God. He did it only in response to questions he had received, and then only as a part of his study on the Pauline texts.
You might take a look at one of the last posts I did tying Calvinism to Greek Philosophy and Determinism. How do you respond and incorporate that into the common claim of Calvinism that it is solely Biblically based and draws it's very methodology out of Scripture? Do you find, for example in the New Testament, a systematic and exhaustive handling of a particular topic where multiple verses are proof-texted to logical syllogisms to infer things that aren't clearly stated in any one portion of Scripture? How is the method employed in Calvinism and His Instsitutes for example, somehow more Biblical and indisputable than the prior 1500 years?
As for the assertion above that what the reformers did was radically different to what had gone on in the previous 1500 years, I will let the reader decide for himself. My main source for this part is "Biblical Hermeneutics, Corley, Lemke & Lovejoy, 2002, Broadman and Holman Publishers", although I also used some other sources. We already saw that Origen used the same dialectical methods as the reformers, something that was also used by Augustine and Aquinas, and was revived by the reformers, in addition to also adapting some methodologies from Rome, having produced one of the first systematic theologies. This approach, as revived by the reformers, was grounded in a strong belief in the inspiration from the Spirit to interpret Scripture. The Alexandrian methodology influenced strongly by Philo and used by Origen found some of it source here. In Biblical Hermeneutics (Corley, Lemke & Lovejoy, 2002, p 88, chapter 2) it states: "The early Christian prophets and teachers explain the Old Testament by what may be called Charismatic Exegesis. ...they proceed that the meaning of the Old Testament is a "mystery" whose "interpretation" cannot be given by human reason but only by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 2:6-16). ... This view of their task does not preclude the New Testament writers from using logic or hermeneutical rules and methods. ... an acceptance of their interpretation of Scripture ... also will rest ultimately not on the proved superiority of their logical procedure or exegetical method, but rather on the conviction of their prophetic character and role". It is from here that the patristic era arises, and with it all subsequent theology. From this grew different schools of interpretation, such Alexandria and Antioch. Philo, a Jewish academic (30 BC to AD 40) bridged the gap between the NT writers and strongly influenced Alexandria, from which came Origen, Augustine (who did use some of Antioch), Aquinas, and was focused on a Spiritual understanding of Scripture. The reformers, inspired by the via moderna, used Augustine to develop an inductive, faith-based hermeneutic and recovered the method of exegetical theology. They inverted the scholastic formula that emphasized reason over faith, they believed in order to understand. (ibid, p112,). Both Luther and Calvin stated strongly that Biblical truth was inaccessible to the human mind unless illuminated by the Spirit, similar to the NT writers (from Luthers Sola Fide). "The Protestant reformation was unrelenting in its hermeneutical quest for clarity: to penetrate beyond human authority and to peel away layers of tradition in search of plain Scriptural meaning". (ibid, p113). From this, at the end of the 16th century, came the Protestant creeds, as a summery of their scholarship.
In response to BW assertion that Calvin's methods preclude new development, and discovery, the writers of this work write the opposite. The reformers liberated hermeneutics, or the reformation would not have been possible. Unfortunately, this liberation led to, and continues to lead to some questionable theologies, such as antinomianism.
In closing of this monster post, I cannot possibly reproduce all the evidence that stand in direct opposition to what is being asserted here, but hopefully this short example will show that the premises and conclusions are not nearly as clear-cut as we are being led to believe.
As Bart and BW said, and I want to reinforce, everyone should do their own research from scholarly sources, not blogs and cheer leaders either for or against Calvin. My intent is not to defend Calvin, as I don't believe he was infallible or complete in his theology. My intent is to make sure that we are factually sound as far as possible, and I am sure there are other sources that can disagree with these I have studied. It is up to the reader to make up his mind.
