Calvinism/Reformed Christianity AMA

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tony, I'm not ignoring you. I haven't had much time to post off mobile, and your response will require some formatting that I can't do on my phone. I will respond to you when I can.

No problem, take the time you need. I appreciate that you're interested in engaging me.

[Kingpoleon]

What do you think of John Wesley? What about the Methodist theology in general?

[DC Al Fine]

Moral intuition ought to be checked against Scripture by the other way around.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Did you mean "not the other way around"?

If so, why not? I understand and respect your belief that the Scripture itself is infallible, but surely you won't deny that people's reading of it can be fallible. As I said, wouldn't Calvinists be the first to claim that the vast majority of people read the Bible wrong? Since both moral intuition and Biblical interpretation are fallible, why not try to check each against the other? Again, if there's a contradiction you can't resolve, you're free to err on the side of interpretation, but I don't see why that makes the process itself illegitimate.

Yes. I was posting on my phone. Bleeping autocorrect.

As you know, Calvinists have a very, very, negative view of humanity. Therefore we believe that reading the cold hard words of a text is 'less fallible' than moral intuitions. I recall you've expressed opposition to a living Constitution. We would rank scripture above moral intuition on similar grounds. People are just too self serving to let their moral intuitions dictate the text. To use a really extreme example, I would take the Biblical text over a German who thought they were doing the world a service by ridding it of Jews.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean, yes, Christian dogma ultimately comes from the Bible (and, to some extent, the Councils of early Christianity, if my understanding is correct). My point was that some aspects of the Christian dogma are prior to others. Like, God's omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, and status as the Creator of everything would come first, right? Soon after, I imagine, come the Trinity and Jesus' atonement. If we accept these propositions as true, we might logically deduce other propositions from them, which might potentially conflict with the conclusions we draw from reading the Bible. Again, you're free to side with your reading of the Bible if you're so inclined, but that doesn't mean it's not worth discussing at all.

Ok that sounds more reasonable. The way I first heard your position, it sounded like you thought there were some Christian first principles existing out in the ether independently of the Bible.

My criticism here is that you run into problems since your first principles come from the same source as your deductions. That is, an incorrect reading of the Bible touches first principles. I've noticed this when I debate with semi-Pelagian Evangelicals. The issue isn't the correct deductions form the Biblical text based on first principles. We disagree on our first principles, like the very nature of God.

[DC Al Fine]

What do you think of John Wesley? What about the Methodist theology in general?

I have a generally positive opinion of Methodism and Wesley in particular. I really like Wesley's emphasis on a changed life, and letting your faith be shown through works. This isn't theological, but I like how the United Methodist Church has remained (relatively) unified, without going full on liberal like the rest of the mainline churches.

On the negative side, there are two major things I dislike about Methodism/Wesley (besides their non-Calvinism ). Most importantly, his emphasis on holiness went a little too far and drifted off into semi-Pelagian or even full on Pelagianism. I think classicla Arminianism is incorrect, but it is much more dangerous as it is presented today, and Wesley/Methodism laid a seed for that.

The second thing is that Methodists don't use wine in communion and that drives me nuts.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As you know, Calvinists have a very, very, negative view of humanity. Therefore we believe that reading the cold hard words of a text is 'less fallible' than moral intuitions. I recall you've expressed opposition to a living Constitution. We would rank scripture above moral intuition on similar grounds. People are just too self serving to let their moral intuitions dictate the text. To use a really extreme example, I would take the Biblical text over a German who thought they were doing the world a service by ridding it of Jews.

If you don't mind, I really didn't think this exchange called for reductio ad Hitlerum. Besides, there are at least a few who did horrible things because they thought the Bible commanded them to (you might argue that they read the Bible wrong, but that just proves my people that people can and do read the Bible wrong), so I don't think it's a very strong argument.

Anyway, I think ultimately I'm just skeptical about the "cold hard words" of the Bible being as easily discernible as you claim. Admittedly I know next to nothing about Biblical exegesis, so I'm far from the best person to make this case, but I do know that many very intelligent (and for at least some of them unquestionably well-intentioned) people have dissented as to what the "cold hard words" of the Bible say. I don't mean dispute your belief that the Calvinist reading is the correct one, but I admit I don't understand how you can categorically reject the possibility that there might be some error in it.

That doesn't mean I'm arguing for a "living Bible" (whatever that would even mean), just that ascertaining the true meaning of any major text - let alone one as ancient and rich as the Bible - is difficult and doesn't necessarily provide a ready-made answer to every question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, uh, yeah, I can certainly imagine that would be a problem.

My intuition is that it is possible to take the standard Christian first principles and derive from them implications that go against the Calvinist view of salvation, but I might be completely wrong and I realize that I'm not the right person to make that argument.

[DC Al Fine]

As you know, Calvinists have a very, very, negative view of humanity. Therefore we believe that reading the cold hard words of a text is 'less fallible' than moral intuitions. I recall you've expressed opposition to a living Constitution. We would rank scripture above moral intuition on similar grounds. People are just too self serving to let their moral intuitions dictate the text. To use a really extreme example, I would take the Biblical text over a German who thought they were doing the world a service by ridding it of Jews.

If you don't mind, I really didn't think this exchange called for reductio ad Hitlerum. Besides, there are at least a few who did horrible things because they thought the Bible commanded them to (you might argue that they read the Bible wrong, but that just proves my people that people can and do read the Bible wrong), so I don't think it's a very strong argument.

It's not calling your side Hitler. I'm just pointing out how twisted moral convictions can get. Use Paul Ryan vs Matthew 25:31-46 if you want a more progressive friendly example.

Anyway, I think ultimately I'm just skeptical about the "cold hard words" of the Bible being as easily discernible as you claim. Admittedly I know next to nothing about Biblical exegesis, so I'm far from the best person to make this case, but I do know that many very intelligent (and for at least some of them unquestionably well-intentioned) people have dissented as to what the "cold hard words" of the Bible say. I don't mean dispute your belief that the Calvinist reading is the correct one, but I admit I don't understand how you can categorically reject the possibility that there might be some error in it.

That doesn't mean I'm arguing for a "living Bible" (whatever that would even mean), just that ascertaining the true meaning of any major text - let alone one as ancient and rich as the Bible - is difficult and doesn't necessarily provide a ready-made answer to every question.

No, I don't categorically reject the possibility of being wrong. What I reject is criticisms of Calvinism based on authorities outside the Bible (read Catholicism and Orthodoxy) or unreasoned emotionalism (semi-Pelagian Protestants). There are some solid criticisms of Calvinism out there, but they are relatively rare. You are correct that the Bible is complex and doesn't provide ready made answers, and I am fine with good faith criticisms. What I am increasingly frustrated with is an apparent refusal to deal with the 'cold hard words' or literal reading of the text. Let me use a classic Calvinist example; predestination:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first reading of this text indicates that God predestines Christians. However, we could change our opinion of this text if there good reason to. Is it translated wrong, is it being read out of context, is there reason to read it allegorically or morally? etc. Both Classical Arminians and Lutheran monergists make criticisms on these grounds. However, what I typically encounter from opponents of Calvinism is either emotional "God wouldn't do that!" claims or worse, ignoring the text altogether.

My intuition is that it is possible to take the standard Christian first principles and derive from them implications that go against the Calvinist view of salvation, but I might be completely wrong and I realize that I'm not the right person to make that argument.

By all means make the argument. I'm okay with secular exegesis as long as its made in good faith. I would posit however, that "standard" first principles as defined by non-Calvinists have a lot of awkward texts to deal with, particularly in Romans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, I don't categorically reject the possibility of being wrong. What I reject is criticisms of Calvinism based on authorities outside the Bible (read Catholicism and Orthodoxy) or unreasoned emotionalism (semi-Pelagian Protestants). There are some solid criticisms of Calvinism out there, but they are relatively rare. You are correct that the Bible is complex and doesn't provide ready made answers, and I am fine with good faith criticisms. What I am increasingly frustrated with is an apparent refusal to deal with the 'cold hard words' or literal reading of the text. Let me use a classic Calvinist example; predestination:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first reading of this text indicates that God predestines Christians. However, we could change our opinion of this text if there good reason to. Is it translated wrong, is it being read out of context, is there reason to read it allegorically or morally? etc. Both Classical Arminians and Lutheran monergists make criticisms on these grounds. However, what I typically encounter from opponents of Calvinism is either emotional "God wouldn't do that!" claims or worse, ignoring the text altogether.

"God wouldn't do that" is certainly a crude way to put it, but what I'm trying to say is that there might be other reasons (including reasons drawn from the Bible) to conclude that predestinating people to salvation or damnation is antithetical to a fundamental aspect of God's nature or will. One such reasons, to me, would be the issue Nathan brought up (which you actually did answer in substance, in a way that I can't really take issue with, but only after dismissing the validity of the question). My point was that, if a theology did indeed discourage people from acting morally, this would constitute evidence that such theology is not true (or at least conflicts with what I'd understand to be God's plan for humanity, so that either that theology is wrong or God's intent would have to be rethought in a radical way). So, all I was trying to say is that you shouldn't dismiss questions of this kind as if they had no bearing on the truth of a theological system.

I'd also caution against dismissing emotivism out of hand. Yes, it has a lot of problem and doesn't make for a very good moral framework on its own, but I also can't see how a moral framework can entirely dispense of a serious consideration of emotions. It's really hard to deny that emotions form an important basis in human moral judgment, and I find it hard to see how the very idea of morality could be given any justification without an emotional appeal of some kind.

That being said, I understand why you'd take issue with Christians who don't take the time to engage seriously with what the Bible says and just ignore the inconvenient passages. That's certainly not the case for Nathan, though (and as for myself, I don't have to since I'm not a Christian, even though I'm interested in many of the ideas that come out of it).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I meant that I'm simply not qualified to make such argument, as my understanding of the Bible is far too superficial to allow that. Maybe some day, if I actually get around to studying Christian theology more seriously, we can go back to it, if you'd like.

[Kingpoleon]

Antonio V, DC Al Fine is certainly the man I would recommend discussing specific denominations with. Sometimes, in studying a religion's theology, the nuances of denominations can be overlooked.

[RFayette]

What are your preferred methods of personal evangelism, if you practice that?  Are there any tracts you like?

[DC Al Fine]

What are your preferred methods of personal evangelism, if you practice that?  Are there any tracts you like?

I dont evangelize nearly enough, but when I do I prefer talking to friends, inviting people over for dinner etc. Not a fan of tracts.