Bastardized theology

Jay Dyer has a 9-point critique of Calvinism.

http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2009/07/problems-in-calvinsim-and-reformation-theology-why-i-left-redux-a-new-debate.html

Let’s see how he fares:

1. Sola Scriptura cannot be the foundation of true religion because the Protestant Bible has the wrong canon and therefore sola scriptura cannot be true (since it presupposes a correct canon). The process of the formation of the canon in the early church as described by myriads of Protestant scholars makes it also impossible, as well as a-historical.

Of course, that’s an assertion, not an argument. And it also seems to me that any objection you can raise again the Protestant canon can also raised against the canon of 1C Jews. Yet that was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles.

2. Calvinism's christology is generally Nestorian, and at best, quasi-Nestorian. This is because it makes the hypostatic union a product of the Incarnation -- divine nature + human nature = person Jesus. Most Calvinists (like many westerns in general) erroneously confess Jesus to be a "human person." Turretinfan, as well as Gordon Clark and his disciples and other reformed giants like A.A. Hodge openly defend Nestorius and his views.

i) He doesn’t actually quote any Reformed theologians who say that. In any event, I think Reformed theologians generally confess Jesus to be a complex person or theanthropic person.

ii) In addition, our Christology should coincide with NT Christology. That’s the standard of comparison. We confess the Christ of the Bible. That’s the object of saving faith.

3. The Calvino-Nestorian view of the Incarnation has all kinds of other flaws that flow from it. Most notably, Calvinists often confess a human man - Jesus - being damned by the Father at the cross. This is, to say the least, Nestorian, while the other option for Calvinists is to keep the orthodox confession of the sole subject being the Logos, but that leads to the conclusion that the Father damned His divine Son - thereby splitting the Trinity. Either route the Calvinist takes, it can only be heretical.

i) This objection piggybacks on the erroneous premise of (3).

ii) In addition, he doesn’t actually quote any Reformed theologian who says Jesus was “damned” by the Father on the cross. “Damnation” is a term with a specific meaning: to be condemned to everlasting hell.

What happened at Calvary, by contrast, is the vicarious condemnation of the Redeemer, who suffers in place of the elect.

4. Also flowing from this issue is the nature of salvation and problems for imputational theology. If no. 3 is correct in its analysis, then we also cannot rely upon a legal status - itself a created grace earned by a human-person-Jesus - to save us. We need an actual ontological change in our whole being - theosis or deification, and this is denied by 99% of Calvinism. The reason for this is also faulty christology, because Calvinism won't consistently confess that the Logos is sole subject of all the Incarnate economic actions. It will not confess two energies in Christ because of its denial of the essence energy distinction and adoption of western absolute divine simplicity, as well as its theological voluntarism and a whole host of difficulties that come with classical, unbalanced Western Augustinian theology.

i) Why is Dyer casting the issue in Eastern Orthodoxy categories (theosis/deification) rather than Roman Catholic categories? I thought Dyer reverted to Catholicism.

ii) Catholicism also has an imputational dimension to its theology. The merit of Christ is imputed to Catholic believers (among others). Likewise, the merit of the saints is imputed to purgatorial souls.

Although Catholic theology doesn’t confine itself to imputational theology, that’s a necessary element of Catholic theology.

iii) Reformed theology is insistent on the necessity of sanctification as well as justification. Subjective change as well as legal status.

5. As just mentioned in point 4, the rejection of essence - energy distinction and adoption of absolute simplicity has plagued calvinism with the same problems as outright Augustinianism. Pure monergism means mon-energism, which means the heresy of monothelitism, condemned by the 6th council. Many Calvinists say they confess the 6th council and two wills in Christ, but the WCF mentions two wills nowhere and Calvinism's acceptance of absolute simplicity means it must of necessity reject two energies in Christ as taught by the 6th council.

i) Many Catholic theologians teach divine simplicity. Does Dyer think that Thomism is heretical?

ii) Dyer also needs to explain why Reformed theology is committed to divine simplicity.

6. The denial of the Real Presence coincides with late medieval nominalism a la Gabriel Biel. Nominalism is an outworking of theological voluntarism and rejection of a proper ordo theologiae - starting one's theology with divine persons/Logos Incarnate and working out from there, as opposed to Calvinism's starting point of all theology at abstract questions of predestination and soteriology.

i) Once again, why is Dyer operating with Eastern Orthodox theological methodology? Isn’t Dyer Roman Catholic?

ii) Who’s to say his ordo theologiae is the “proper” ordo theologiae? What’s the Pauline ordo theologiae in Romans or Ephesians?

iii) Biel was a Catholic theologian in good standing with his church:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02559a.htm

Is Dyer accusing Biel of heresy? If Biel was so unreliable, why wasn’t he sanctioned by his religious superiors? Why was his theology never condemned by the Vatican?

iv) Whether we should affirm or deny the real presence is a question for exegetical theology, not historical theology.

7. That God has an "attribute" of hate, wherein He damns for all eternity in "fire," thereby giving evil an eternal "existence." Instead, the best answer to this apparent Manichaean dualism is St. Maximus' apokatastasis wherein all things really will be recapitulated in Christ and the reprobate will experience the glory fire of God, which is good in itself, as torment.

i) According to Scripture, God hates evil and evildoers.

ii) According to Scripture, God consigns some evildoers to everlasting perdition.

iii) Apparently, Dyer endorses full-blown universalism. Not only is that contrary to Scripture, but it conflicts with traditional Catholic theology.

8. Calvinism has the same anthropology as Pelagianism in terms of pre-lapsarian man and is actually merit-based in it's covenant of works doctrine. Calvinism thus confuses nature and grace in the garden as well as in soteriology, yet ironically rejects any real deification of the Logos' flesh, and the former is based on the latter. The covenant of works, as said above, also necessitates a human person Jesus meritting a created legal state, which cannot save us. Our problem is mortality and corruption and thus we need to be made immortal, as 1 Cor. 15 clearly says Christ does to all.

i) Dyer needs to explain what he means by the “deification of the Logos’ flesh.” Christ is sinless and impeccable.

ii) According to Scripture, our problem isn’t limited to mortality and corruption. Our problem also includes culpability. We are guilty as well as corrupt.

iii) Once again, Dyer seems to be reverting to Eastern Orthodox theology. But Catholic theology doesn’t limit the problem to mortality and corruption. Catholic theology also operates with forensic categories, such as merit and demerit.

iv) 1 Cor 15 is irrelevant since Dyer is guilty of a false dichotomy. The fact that 1 Cor 15 is concerned with mortality and corruption hardly circumscribes Pauline soteriology to those categories alone.

9. Because human nature is inherently evil in Calvinism and because evil is given as substantial existence, created nature is thus alienated from and set in dialectical opposition to God and thus matter cannot image the Divine Persons or convey real divine energy/grace. We cannot be saved because Christ is not consubstantial with us. He is not consubstantial with us, because He does not assume our fallen nature, but fallen nature is thought to be inherently evil. In this system Christ does not assume universal human nature, but only some men - namely the elect. But resurrection isn't a "natural" event - its supernatural and there is no other basis for all men to be resurrected than union with Christ.

i) Needless to say, Calvinism doesn’t regard human nature as “inherently” evil. “Fallen” nature is evil. But what is fallen is not inherent. It represents a declension from God’s design for human nature.

ii) Since Adam and Eve were “good” before they fell, it’s quite possible for them to be divine image-bearers. And even sinners can be divine image-bearers. Dyer isn’t defining Scriptural terms Scripturally.

iii) In Reformed theology, Christ does not assume the specific nature of the elect, as if the nature of the elect were in a class apart from the nature of the reprobate. The distinction between the elect and reprobate isn’t based on natural differences between the elect and the reprobate. And you notice that Dyer isn’t quoting any Reformed theologians to corroborate his claim.

iv) In what sense does Dyer think that Christ assumed a “fallen nature”? Does he think Christ was naturally sinful?

Dyer operates with a bastardized theology that isn’t strictly Catholic or Orthodox. And his universalism is arguably at odds with both–especially Catholicism.