The affable Al Kimel has weighed in on the debate between Grano and some of the T-bloggers.
http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1940
“It all depends on one’s starting point. The Triabloguers are absolutely convinced that the Calvinist system—and it is a system in a way that, say, Aquinas’s Summa Theologia is not—accurately and faithfully represents the teaching of Holy Scripture as established by superior scientific exegesis. Lutherans, Methodists, and Mennonites, and of course Catholics and Orthodox, simply do not exegete the Scriptures as well as they do.”
1.Actually, I don’t know that Jason Engwer is a five-point Calvinist. I invited him to join the team for other reasons.
2.It’s true that I think Reformed exegesis is better over all than non-Reformed exegesis. Of course, Lutherans think that Lutheran exegesis is better than non-Lutheran exegesis. And Mennonites think they interpret the Sermon on the Mount better than the Magisterial Reformers.
So I’m not quite sure what the point of this observation is.
Continuing with Kimel:
“The Triaboguers do not see that the only reason the Bible seems to support Calvinism is because they are reading it through the hermeneutical lens of the Westminster Confession and the canons of Dort.”
This is wrong on several counts:
1.Speaking for myself, I’m not a cradle Calvinist. I’m a convert to Calvinism. So it’s not as if I have the tinted lens of the Westminster Confession or the canons of Dort glued to my face.
2.Many verses of Scripture are neutral on the details of the Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate. And I use the same methodology for both.
My methodology isn’t essentially any different from Fitzmyer or Brown (Catholic), Wenham, Wright, France, Thiselton, Towner, Smalley, O’Brien, or Barnett (Anglican), Keener or Fee (charismatic), Witherington, Green, Marshall, or Barrett (Wesleyan), Hoehner, Bock, or Block (Dispensational), Cranfield (Barthian), or Bruce (Plymouth Brethren), to name a few.
3.Now, there are certain meta-hermeneutical issues in which Calvinism does come into play.
A strong doctrine of divine sovereignty underwrites inspiration in a way that a libertarian position does not.
A strong doctrine of providence underwrites the hermeneutical process in a way that a libertarian position does not.
So, at the level of epistemic justification, Calvinism is able to warrant a high view of Scripture as well as a level of confidence in the hermeneutical process in a way that a metaphysic of mere contingency cannot.
4.There is also a dialectical interplay between a belief-system and its prooftexts.
For example, covenant theology does supply a hermeneutical framework. At the same time, covenant theology is dependent on exegesis.
Is this viciously circular? No. For it turns on the explanatory power of covenant theology. Can covenant theology integrate more exegetical data than an alternative scheme? If so, then it’s exegetically superior to the alternatives.
Continuing with Kimel:
“The Church Fathers are only of interest to them to the degree that the Fathers confirm their exegetical conclusions.”
I can’t speak for my colleagues, but it depends on what we mean:
1.If this is an argument from authority, then it’s true that I don’t regard the church fathers as authority-figures.
2.I’m interested in their arguments. The quality of their argumentation.
3. In addition, some church fathers are in a position to be historical witnesses to this or that.
Moving along:
“That the Church Fathers were not five-point TULIP Calvinists does not bother them.”
True. I believe in the progress of dogma. I believe that knowledge is cumulative.
But seeing as Kimel is also a theological progressive, a la Newman, it’s unclear to me why a degree of discontinuity between past and present is unfavorable for Calvinism, but favorable for Catholicism.
Moving along:
“And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this” (J. H. Newman). And one [i.e. Kimel] might add, it is even a safer, uncontrovertible truth that Christianity was never ever ever ever Calvinist.
1.But Newman’s statement is obviously false. It would only be true if we limit historical theology to pre-Reformation theology.
Yet a quarter of (church) historical theology now includes Protestant theology. Five-hundred years from now, half of historical theology will include Protestant theology.
2.Moreover, Catholicism is hardly monolithic. For example, Cardinal Dulles has discussed the evolution of the present pontiff’s views on Vatican II, as well as the differences between John-Paul II and Benedict XVI on Vatican II.
http://firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/articles/dulles.html
3.It’s true that Christendom was never Calvinist, but then, Christendom was never any one thing in particular.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteAre you a 5-point Calvinist or not? If not, what are you?
Kimel kind of reminds me of the "You're wrong because you think you're right" fallacy (which is of course self-refuting).
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to see that your points 1, 2 and 3 are precisely what is the fundamental point of contention when dialoging with Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
ReplyDeleteAnd I must say that if you follow the implicit argument in your three points , we leave oursleves open to needing to say the Gnostic thelogy, Arian Theology etc. all need to be considered as the theology of the church, and then the divinity of Christ, the doctrin of the Trinity etc. begin to slowly slip away.
If you read Peters sermons in Early Acts, it is very difficult to see either that Jesus is supposed to be God, or get any sense that God is triune.
Interested parties might wish to consult the lengthy and detailed Reformed/Orthodox debate hosted here on Clifton Healy's blog. On that page, scroll down to read the entries in chronological order. It requires some investment, but it's worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteLarry,
ReplyDeleteCould you explain which points 1, 2, and 3 you are referring to? There are several times that Steve used those numbers in his argument and it would be helpful to know for sure which you refer to!
Oh yes, my apologies, I should have been clearer. I intended to refer to the last three:
ReplyDelete"1.But Newman’s statement is obviously false. It would only be true if we limit historical theology to pre-Reformation theology.
Yet a quarter of (church) historical theology now includes Protestant theology. Five-hundred years from now, half of historical theology will include Protestant theology.
2.Moreover, Catholicism is hardly monolithic. For example, Cardinal Dulles has discussed the evolution of the present pontiff’s views on Vatican II, as well as the differences between John-Paul II and Benedict XVI on Vatican II.
http://firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/articles/dulles.html
3.It’s true that Christendom was never Calvinist, but then, Christendom was never any one thing in particular."
Larry,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification! :-)
To presume to speak for Steve (which is always fun) :-) ....
His point in # 1 is actually quite valid. Newman says: "...at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism..." and Steve rightly points out that this can only be true if "history" is pre-Reformation. Now that certainly could have been what Newman meant, but if one takes Christian history as including, say, the 19th and 20th Centuries, then Steve's point is valid that there IS historical Protestantism.
But I don't think that his # 1 is intended as anything more than to demonstrate Newman's erroneous starting point. It doesn't read (at least to me) as if Steve is saying, "Newman is wrong--Calvinism has been around from the begining" especially given Steve's # 3 statement to the contrary (which, incidently, depending on how he meant it, I probably disagree with).
I think you're reading too much into Steve's comments. You are saying that Steve's points would leave us open to Gnostism, Arianism, etc. but those points from Steve clearly show that Steve's acceptance of Calvinism is not based on the historicity of Calvinism (which is a rather loose term--are Reformed Baptists Calvinists like Presbyterians are Calvinists? etc.). As such, the historicity of the Gnostic movement is not an argument for Gnosticism.
Indeed, it appears to me that if anything Steve's position would be less likely to lead to Gnosticism and Arianism, while someone who accepts on the "historic Christian Church" would need to deal with the fact of those historic heresies within the Church.
I too was never taught Calvinism when I first became a Christian, but when I started reading the Scriptures, it was clear that they taught (what I would come to know as) the five points of Calvinism. I don't think I'd even heard of the Westminster Confession before that. Every time I've read a non-Calvinist try to interpret passages like John 6, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:7-8, Romans 9, etc., they won't interpret those passages in the same way that they will others (i.e. they'll read the verses backwards, etc.). A great example of that was in Ergun Caner's sermon where he tried to deal with Romans 9:11 and ended up saying the negation of what that passage directly states. Every time a non-Calvinist tries to interpret those passages, the result always reinforces my belief.
ReplyDeletelarry said, "If you read Peters sermons in Early Acts, it is very difficult to see either that Jesus is supposed to be God, or get any sense that God is triune."
Who says that we have to take our theology only from Peter's sermons. As Athanasius pointed out in his works against the Arians, anyone doing a simple reading of passages like John 1:1-3 or John 10:30 would know that Jesus was of one substance with the Father. To quote Athanasius himself:
"It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases ‘He was not,’ and ‘before’ and ‘when,’ are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures."
-Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1.4.13
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-57.htm#P5344_2094996
again:
"And this one may see from our own experience; for if when a word proceeds from men we infer that the mind is its source, and, by thinking about the word, see with our reason the mind which it reveals, by far greater evidence and incomparably more, seeing the power of the Word, we receive a knowledge also of His good Father, as the Saviour Himself says, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldy to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say."
-Athanasius, Against the Heathen 3.45
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-14.htm#P1732_625324
Interesting Saint and sinner. I don't find the 5 points of Calvism as coming clearly from Scripture. Our experiences of Scripture differ, now there's a puzzle?
ReplyDeleteAs for the historicity bit. it almsot sounds like you are arguing that the church is a-historical.
also, my point about Arianism and Gnosticism is that the definition of Church/chrisitianity simply isn't all the collections of theologies, which have claimed to be Christian throughout history since the time of Christ. In one way or another we all narrow that definition. I see Steve narrowing by an abstract system that came into existence very recently in history, Newman does so based on a longer view and less systematically.
BTW I agree with Athenasius ;-) But my point was we have the Scriptures we have because the church has always known Jesus was God and that God was Triune, thus we have the texts we consider canonical. As your appeal to Athenasius shows we must always appeal both to Scripture and to the witness of the church, ie tradition. This isn't dogma (since I am niether Catholic nor Orthodox)this is simple observation of what Christians always do. Including Protestants who do so while tyring to deny they do so.
Calvindude,
ReplyDeleteActually as for the last point #1 I was not taking that Steve believes that Calvinism was arround from the beginning but that to not believe so as I assume Steve believes (If he believes otherwise there woudl be no point to conversing on this subject as he would clearly be out of touch) rather that Calvinism some how discoverd the actual truth of Christianity 1500 years after the church was founded. This I find astounding.
And here is where both you and Steve I think miss the point in dialoging with Orthodox and Catholics. What you call historicity they actually call continuity (or more to the point apostolic succession0. But continuty is not the same as some mere historicity as if they were simply appealing to the existence of a theology to prove its validity. Calvinism and Lutheranism and all Protestantism lack this continuity, they do not lack historicity. Close study of Calvins and Luthers use of Patristics shows a lack of understanding of the church as a continuous entity that can be destinguished from some "history of Christianity". My point was that the history of Christianity includes not only Calvinism and Lutheranism but also, Arianism, and the various Gnosticism, Montanism, Donatists, etc. Each of these is found wanting in part due to their lack of conitnuity, that they do not interpret scripture as the church has always interpreted scripture, They failed to pass along the faith once delivered to the saints.
What I hear in Steve's arguments is that although he admits that Calvinism does not agree with the continuous interpretation of Scripture through the centuries in the church that it is the truest theology, even though it did not exist until at best 500 years ago (and that is possibly a highly dubious claim since 5 point calvinism may in fact misinterpret Calvin).
Larry,
ReplyDeleteYou misrepresent the Calvinist position when you assume that it "some how discoverd the actual truth of Christianity 1500 years after the church was founded."
A) While Calvin was the first to systematize the doctrines that bear his name, he was not the only one to believe those individual doctrines.
B) Calvin, like all men, is a unique individual with a unique theology. I don't believe any two men (or women) agree on any theology 100% consistently.
C) That said, certain doctrines in Scripture have been given more weight throughout history than others. Generally, the focus resulted from the debating of some issue. Thus, before Arianism reared its head there wasn't a need for the Church to formulate a strict doctrine of the Trinity. Before Pelagian, there was no need for Augustine to write what he did about predestination (interestingly, he wrote far more about predestination than Calvin did). Likewise, the issue of the fililoque wasn't important until it was debated, etc.
D) Given C), the emphasis of individual Church Fathers is going to change a great deal. We would not expect them to argue 100% consistently from 33AD until 2006. Depending on which doctrines were in dispute, theologians would offer their various opinions. This is why, for instance, we would never expect a Church Father to have addressed Neo-Orthodoxy.
E) It would be erroneous to assume that a particular Church Father's silence on a specific issue (unless that issue was one of the current debates) indicates he would have "agreed" with whatever you believe the universal consensus to be. He may have well disagreed with that. But having never considered the issue, he never voiced his disagreement.
F) Likewise, we can't read anachronistically. In other words, we cannot assume that when a Church Father said something about the "Church" that he means what we mean today. Instead, we must let the author define the terms himself. If he does not define the terms locally, we need to know what the historical useage of the word would be (given other texts that use the same words, etc.). Lacking that, we are left from the position of saying that we cannot know for certain what a Church Father meant per se.
G) As a result of E) & F), one cannot argue "the universal consensus" based simply on the usage of certain words by certain Church Fathers or their lack of disagreement on certain issues, since the "universal consensus" is defined by what is currently assumed to be the universal consensus. Because of this, the declarations of tradition or any other authority figure (such as a Pope or Priest) must have as their proof not only the correct words, but the correct argumentation by the original authors. Otherwise, to press them into use is to press them too far.
So when you write:
---
And here is where both you and Steve I think miss the point in dialoging with Orthodox and Catholics. What you call historicity they actually call continuity (or more to the point apostolic succession0
---
I merely respond that in order to understand what you call "continuity" one must be able to understand historicity. The only way to know that when Church Father A said something that means what Church Father Z says is to be able to demonstrate historically that they spoke about the same thing. You cannot speak of "continuity" based on words that have a different meaning for one person than they do for another. In such an instance, the continuity is merely a continuity of labels, not a continuity of content.
You wrote:
---
Close study of Calvins and Luthers use of Patristics shows a lack of understanding of the church as a continuous entity that can be destinguished from some "history of Christianity".
---
This is your claim, of course; but you need to argue for it.
By the way, your argument that historicity is not the same thing as continuity is belied when you say:
---
Each of these is found wanting in part due to their lack of conitnuity, that they do not interpret scripture as the church has always interpreted scripture, They failed to pass along the faith once delivered to the saints.
---
How can you know that they do not interpret Scripture as the Church "has always interpreted" it unless you know how the Church has historically interpreted it? Likewise for how you can know the "faith once delievered to the saints" is not identical.
larry said, "As for the historicity bit. it almsot sounds like you are arguing that the church is a-historical."
ReplyDeleteI really don't know what you mean by that. When you use the word 'church', do you mean a magesterial hierarchy that is supposed to interpret the Bible for everyone else? I most certainly recognize the church universal and condemn the "go it alone" belief that many Christians have. I also condemn the "we don't need church history crowd". However, my point was that the Scriptures are very clear (99.9% of the time) and should be read in the same way you would read any other work of literature.
larry said, "But my point was we have the Scriptures we have because the church has always known Jesus was God and that God was Triune, thus we have the texts we consider canonical."
If, by the 'church' (again, the fallacy of equivocation), you mean the apostles, then I would agree with you (since they were inspired by the Holy Spirit). If, however, you mean some church hierarchy, I would disagree because it is a-historical. The post-apostolic church 'discovered' the canon; they did not create it. Several modern works that deal with the canon (such as Green's "The Books the Church Suppressed" or Komoszewki's "Reinventing Jesus") cover this.
larry said, "As your appeal to Athenasius shows we must always appeal both to Scripture and to the witness of the church, ie tradition."
Athanasius did appeal to tradition (i.e. the catholicity of a belief), but it was always secondary to Scripture. Scripture was seen as both materially sufficient (containing all doctrine) and perspicuous (sufficiently clear). Thus, they believed that it was formally sufficient.
Fathers such as Irenaeus only appealed to tradition because the Gnostics were distorting the Scriptures so badly that he could not reason with them on the basis of it (i.e. they interpreted John 1:14 to mean that Jesus did not come in the flesh!). People who distort the Scriptures that badly cannot be taken as proof that Scripture is unclear.
Calvindude,
ReplyDeleteVery eloquent, and I don't think I substantially agree with most of your points in your last comment in responce to me. However, I think you may need to take your own advice in terms of Patristics and ask yourself if we are using the terms "historicity" and "continuity" in the same way. I submit we do not.
I don't have the time to argue that out, nor the other point you said I need to argue for. Which is most likely true.
If this topic continues my interest I might post on this over on my blog and attempt to address your points.
However, I was just making observations and I am not sure how important this little debate really is to me.
I don't find comments sections good places for extended argument (this is a idiosyncracy I suppose on my part and is not meant as a criticism just explaining how i interact with this medium.)
Saint and Sinner,
ReplyDeleteAs with calvidude I agree with you except that we seem to have issue of definition. BTW as for "church" it is neither some abstract invisible thing nor a "magisterium", as for what it is if I knew how to answer that I'd probably be either orthodox or catholic.
But in the end you actually missed my point. But as I said to calvindude, i don't have the time nor do I see comments as places condusive to extended arguments. If this remains of interest to me long enough I may try an extended argument on this topic over at my Priestly Goth Blog.
It has been fun and intersting engaging you on this though.
Correction to my responce to calvindude: the first line should read " ...I don't think I substantialy disagree... "
ReplyDeletelarry said,"It has been fun and intersting engaging you on this though."
ReplyDeleteThank you. Ditto.
steve--
ReplyDelete3.Now, there are certain meta-hermeneutical issues in which Calvinism does come into play.
Certain? Try ALL.
A strong doctrine of divine sovereignty underwrites inspiration in a way that a libertarian position does not.
I see absolutely no reason why Calvinism's conception of sovereignty is "stronger" than an libertarian's. From my perspective, Calvinism's quasi-pantheistic conception of sovereignty is one of the weaker ideas of the doctrine that one could hold. Of course, this gets back to the issue of how human language infuses words with meaning--you have chosen to say that your conception of sovereignty is "Strong." This, however, by no means establishes the point.
A strong doctrine of providence underwrites the hermeneutical process in a way that a libertarian position does not.
Again, you are presupposing a certain value for "providence" that may or not be an actual reality. That you interpret your conception of "providence" to be strong by no means mitigates against the antithetical viewpoint claiming the exact same thing.
So, at the level of epistemic justification, Calvinism is able to warrant a high view of Scripture as well as a level of confidence in the hermeneutical process in a way that a metaphysic of mere contingency cannot.
Again, you persist with pejorative language for the antithesis of the values that you have placed upon your own presuppositional paradigms. From my perspective, a Calvinistic conception of Scripture leaves no place for confidence in God whatsoever, but of course you will disagree. You should refrain, however, from begging the values of the words that you use, assuming that we will all accept the definitions which you impose upon them.
Calvindude and Saint and Sinner (and anyone else interested) it appears our discussion has held my attention a more extendended argument can by found here on my blog.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, those rotten "word symbols" that we attach meaning to. Exist-Dissolve is like many of my college English professors whose main purpose was to teach that the author's original meaning is inconsequential. What is really important is what the text means to ME. Words had different meanings back in Chaucer or Shakespeare's day, so who cares what they meant. Same thing with God's revelation in Scripture. I guess we can't really know the "meaning" of anything, accept of what we attach to it of course...
ReplyDelete