Calvinism/Reformed Christianity AMA

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've had a question in mind for a while, but I've hesitated to ask it, partly because it's the sort of outsider question that might not be of much interest to you, and partly because it's born of something akin to (but not quite) morbid curiosity. If you intend to close this down soon, I guess I'll go ahead and ask.

Does Calvinism provide a specific explanation for why limited atonement is necessary to God's plan, or the only possible manifestation of His greatness, or any other justification for the doctrine that might be the object of debate in the terms of moral theology? Or does the argument for it merely state that this is what God says (based, I would guess, on scriptural evidence), and that His reasons for withholding salvation to some are taken to be beyond the reach of human comprehension?

[Antonio the Sixth]

You touched on an issue that hasn't been settled yet, so I had to do a bit of reading on this one. I did a brief survey of several pastors and theologians blogs, asked a few Calvinist clergy I know etc.

The majority position was that we can only logic out limited atonement from scripture, and humanity isn't privy to the reasons why (as Calvinist rapper Shai Linne, put it "Why does he choose some and not others to see Jesus? Our God is in the heavens, he does whatever he pleases.").

However, a significant minority do try to find the reasons for it. The most common argument goes roughly:

1) The creation exists for God's glory
2) God's glory is maximized when he both saves and damns. That is, his mercy is made all the more glorious when combined with his justice, and his justice is made more glorious by his mercy.
3) Therefore God will neither save all or damn all.

I'm in the majority camp personally, and reject the above argument on the grounds that Christianity and utilitarianism do not mix.

Oh wow, I had no idea this wasn't a settled issue among Calvinists. Thanks for taking the time to do research and ask around to answer me.

I guess that, if I had to choose between the two arguments, I'd rather go with the majority as well. Utilitarianism aside, the minority one also relies on some... peculiar ideas of "glory" and "justice" that raise new disturbing questions. It's harder to argue against the idea that some of God's choices are simply beyond humans' ability to comprehend (though "he does whatever he pleases" strikes me as a terrible way of putting it).

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's really interesting. My image of Calvinism was that of a very structured, comprehensive, and more or less set in stone theological doctrine. It's fascinating to see that crucial aspects of it are still being debated.

[Antonio the Sixth]

First, I must say that we ought to be chiefly concerned with whether Calvinism is true, not what 'it encourages'. If I thought Catholicism were true, I'd have to swallow a lot of Marian dogma, despite it encouraging the wrong things in my opinion. Not that you subscribe to that foolish brand of liberalism, but I take issue with your wording.

Point taken. I certainly didn't mean to imply an instrumental or consequentialist view of why one should adopt a theological position, only that I doubted that a theological system that was true would have this particular problem (but as you point out I'm sure you'd say the same about some of the superstitions that Marian dogma "encourages", and I think that would be a fair criticism!).

I'm tempted to take this point even further (not to take issue with DC's explanation, just because it's a topic I find personally interesting). I'd argue that not only is a critical examination of the moral implications that a given theology entails relevant to its truth value, but that it's actually the most compelling test of its truth value. I hope we can agree that trying to resolve the issue through an empirical test of some kind is a dead end (not because empirics proves religion wrong, but because it doesn't prove anything at all, because metaphysical propositions are inherently unfalsifiable). On the other hand, while I understand that arguments based on scripture play the leading role in theological disputes among Christian faiths, I'd like to point out that these arguments will necessarily leave behind those of us who are interested in Christian thought but aren't inclined to uncritically accept the scripture (whom I'd like to think can be part of the conversation).

[Antonio the Sixth]

First, I must say that we ought to be chiefly concerned with whether Calvinism is true, not what 'it encourages'. If I thought Catholicism were true, I'd have to swallow a lot of Marian dogma, despite it encouraging the wrong things in my opinion. Not that you subscribe to that foolish brand of liberalism, but I take issue with your wording.

Point taken. I certainly didn't mean to imply an instrumental or consequentialist view of why one should adopt a theological position, only that I doubted that a theological system that was true would have this particular problem (but as you point out I'm sure you'd say the same about some of the superstitions that Marian dogma "encourages", and I think that would be a fair criticism!).

I'm tempted to take this point even further (not to take issue with DC's explanation, just because it's a topic I find personally interesting). I'd argue that not only is a critical examination of the moral implications that a given theology entails relevant to its truth value, but that it's actually the most compelling test of its truth value. I hope we can agree that trying to resolve the issue through an empirical test of some kind is a dead end (not because empirics proves religion wrong, but because it doesn't prove anything at all, because metaphysical propositions are inherently unfalsifiable). On the other hand, while I understand that arguments based on scripture play the leading role in theological disputes among Christian faiths, I'd like to point out that these arguments will necessarily leave behind those of us who are interested in Christian thought but aren't inclined to uncritically accept the scripture (whom I'd like to think can be part of the conversation).

What exactly are you planning on basing Christocentric moral arguments on besides Scripture​? If you're not Christian, it's not going to be the the Magisterium or that Montanist nonsense the Mainlines have been getting into. Am missing something?

What about moral intuitions? What about rational deduction from (Christian, in this case) first principles? I hope you wouldn't claim that God wants us to abdicate these methods of seeking moral truth altogether. Sure, they can sometimes lead us astray, but so does Biblical interpretation (as I'm pretty sure Calvinists would claim that a large number of people read the Bible wrong ). What's wrong, then, with checking the conclusions you reach based on one methods on the basis of another? Ideally, we should expect the three to lead us to the same conclusion. If they don't, you're free to give primacy to your reading of the Bible if you are convinced that it is the correct one. But if your reading of the Bible happens to be in line with people's moral intuitions and deductions, surely that would bolster your case, wouldn't it? And again, it would also mean that you have arguments to convince even people who don't fully trust the Bible as a moral guide.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.