How Calvin-ist are some Calvin-ists?

[Amittai]

This is a separate thread from my other one on the great man himself.

One of my old elders said Calvin wasn't a Calvinist.

I understand there have been many waves referred to as Calvinist:

- around 1540-1570 in various countries
- around 1610-1630 in various countries
- around 1880-1920 in the Netherlands
- around 1970-2019 in England
- more recently in the USA

And were the Huguenots (who emigrated from France a lot) a little bit "Calvinist"?

At any rate it appears each wave or elements within the waves, believed different things from each other, presented to us often in a dumbed-down form.

Are some of the waves or elements or sources worth the while for the average lay person taking any notice of them these days?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Watching...
I like some aspects of Calvinism... but there seems to be so much opposition to it by respected leaders, I am still weary.

 

[Amittai]

Supplementary questions:

What is the connection between Rosicrucianism and the various calvinisms? Francis Bacon and the Winter King are mixed up in that.

What is the actual connection between Jansen / Jansenism and the various calvinisms? I see the same tropes weaponised against ordinary attenders in non-Protestant and Protestant churches alike.

 

[hedrick]

The term Calvinism today seems to refer to theology that sees predestination (in the form of TULIP) as at the center, as essential for an understanding of grace.

Calvin certainly said things like later Calvinists, but it wasn't at the center of his theology. It's also not clear that he believed all 5 points. The one usually disputed is limited atonement.

 

[JSRG]

What is the actual connection between Jansen / Jansenism and the various calvinisms? I see the same tropes weaponised against ordinary attenders in non-Protestant and Protestant churches alike.

Jansenism was a movement that started in the 17th century among some Catholics, mostly in France. It was essentially a combination of Calvinism and Catholicism (this is an oversimplification, admittedly, but is a good quick way to explain its beliefs). It gradually fell out of favor, especially after it got condemned by some popes.

 

[Amittai]

gradually fell out of favor

Sadly, it is all the more prevalent than ever now, in the format of excuse making subtly projected upon the subaltern without the sustaining strength of Another Comforter (very Ancien Regime).

Ref Francis Bacon, C S Peirce says "He wrote on science like a Lord Chancellor" (quoted by Susan Haack).

(The dictator Bacon, who was active in the day of Dee and Fludd, introduced the single cause fallacy that got reinforced by J S Mill.)

Are fundamentalists annoyed with Schleiermacher because he was honest about where they were headed?

Because Calvin declined to write about so much of truth, is that the explanation for the strange accentuation of his secular followers and his followers in other religions? Perhaps there is something in the Weber thesis after all.

I'm trying to wade through the Institutes and I'm finding the commentary on them by other writers very puzzling. I should probably put this off for a few months!

The name Calvin (and the strange word "reformed") was getting mentioned a lot by people around me but perhaps I ought to let it all pass me by.

 

[JSRG]

Sadly, it is all the more prevalent than ever now, in the format of excuse making subtly projected upon the subaltern without the sustaining strength of Another Comforter (very Ancien Regime).

How is Jansenism "all the more prevalent than ever"? Sure, it's on the rise a little (it seems every fringe viewpoint that basically died out has gotten at least a slight revival thanks to the Internet), but I've only seen a few people that have tried advocating it, a far cry from its greater popularity in the 17th/18th centuries.

Remember, Jansenism was a Catholic movement that had very strong Calvinist influences (which is why I said that, while oversimplified, Jansenism being a combination of Catholicism and Calvinism was still a fairly accurate description). You can't be a Jansenist without at least considering yourself Catholic. But Jansenism got condemned. Ignoring condemnations (usually with the argument that they weren't binding) isn't exactly something new, but very few take that stand for Jansenism in the modern day.

 

[Amittai]

Ignoring condemnations (usually with the argument that they weren't binding) isn't exactly something new, but very few take that stand for Jansenism in the modern day.

The content of the attitude has swept the board (among protestants also). The paradox about "condemnations" and "bindingness" is that those aren't even non-issues any more. And knowingly using names like Calvin or Jansen, or not, doesn't make any difference either way either. There's just an assumption that (in your quote from my 6) is christian belief.

 

[public hermit]

Jansenism was a movement that started in the 17th century among some Catholics, mostly in France. It was essentially a combination of Calvinism and Catholicism (this is an oversimplification, admittedly, but is a good quick way to explain its beliefs). It gradually fell out of favor, especially after it got condemned by some popes.

I thought the dispute between Jansenism and the Dominicans was resolved at the Congregation de Auxiliis? Basically it was agreed that the Jansenists couldn't call the Dominicans "Pelagians" and the Dominicans couldn't call Jansenists "Calvinists" lol. In other words, agree to disagree.

 

[Amittai]

Congregation de Auxiliis

That only makes it "not an official dispute", it doesn't stop the fallacy as in "excuse making subtly projected upon the subaltern without the sustaining strength of Another Comforter", excuse making because we are beyond hope, a sad stereotype of some religious phenomena, because of vital gaps in Scripture belief on the part of many of those who seized the public image. Thank you for the background.

limited atonement

Because we humans are differentiated, it's only as individuals we can appropriate atonement, I've never seen what was strange about that. If the C of E was going all John Robinson, but the John Robinsons wrapped themselves in "Calvinist" garb to please John Stott, does that make them any less John Robinsons? Is people pleasing the underlying value in some of the calvinism spin offs?

 

[JSRG]

I thought the dispute between Jansenism and the Dominicans was resolved at the Congregation de Auxiliis? Basically it was agreed that the Jansenists couldn't call the Dominicans "Pelagians" and the Dominicans couldn't call Jansenists "Calvinists" lol. In other words, agree to disagree.

From my understanding, while the Congregation de Auxiliis did basically command a "live and let live" to both sides, it wasn't about Jansenism (and in fact predated the Jansenism controversy), but was rather a dispute between the Jesuits and Dominicans.

 

[The Liturgist]

The term Calvinism today seems to refer to theology that sees predestination (in the form of TULIP) as at the center, as essential for an understanding of grace.

Calvin certainly said things like later Calvinists, but it wasn't at the center of his theology. It's also not clear that he believed all 5 points. The one usually disputed is limited atonement.

I have been meaning to ask you some questions along the lines indicated by this thread, namely:

What would you say some of the most common misconceptions about Calvin are? Also, conversely, what are some endearing facts about Calvin that you have found many people are unaware of?

Finally, as a liberal Christian, what attracts you to Calvin as a Theologian, as a Reformer, and as a human being?

 

[atpollard]

As a Particular Baptist, I would be viewed as a “5 point Calvinist” by the TULIP Soteriology yardstick, but I can guarantee that the beliefs and the writings of John Calvin had ZERO influence on my theology. I will leave you to debate schisms in the Catholic Church from days gone by, but the writings of the Synod of Dort are a better place to look for the birth of “Calvinism” in my opinion (although the reality is that the teachings of ‘TULIP’ Sotierology were being authored by old men when John Calvin was still wearing little boy pants.

The belief that John 6:44 and Ephesians 2:1-10 (among other places like Romans 9) say what they mean and mean what they say is the real cornerstone of Calvinism / Reformed Theology / the Doctrines of Grace. It is an internally coherent theology born of Scripture founded on an interpretation anchored in a handful of (we would argue) very clear verses. ‘The Institutes’ is not the rock upon which Calvinism is built.

 

[Amittai]

... rather a dispute between the Jesuits and Dominicans.

Same thing really (behavioural manoeuvrings in the flesh) - and the response by atpollard (no. 13) also sheds light on these pre "reformation" roots. I observed this very strongly from what I've lived through across several denominations and "flavours" of movements, but couldn't match it with background information well enough; conversely those with the background information perhaps didn't see its significance.

 

[Amittai]

Soteriology ... Sotierology ... authored by old men when John Calvin was still wearing little boy pants.

The belief that John 6:44 and Ephesians 2:1-10 (among other places like Romans 9) say what they mean and mean what they say is the real cornerstone of Calvinism / Reformed Theology / the Doctrines of Grace. It is an internally coherent theology born of Scripture ...

I am so thrilled this thread came alive in the way I secretly wished and couldn't explain properly

Can I invite you and the others to take forward three of the strings / bunches of ideas you've mentioned.

1 - Do Jesus and Another Comforter ask us to believe in "Soteriology", and is "Soteriology" too small? What parts of the eschaton of our ministry (since Ascension), what parts of providential perseverance, what parts of the economy of the talents, does "so great a salvation" not encompass? Are there really more than 5 points? What parts of Old and New Testaments do not point, however obliquely, to what Our Lord wants for us?

2 - Can we deal with Dort specifically (also the later Dutch folks and the recent two waves of both English and American ones) in parallel. I had a gut feeling this would be worth looking at to some extent.

3 - I think a far larger range of Scriptures underpin what Our Lord wants for us than that. I've not the slightest doubt you cited this selection with good intent but this mode of presentation has long struck me as mimicking the tracing of ever decreasing circles in reaction to the ever decreasing circles traced by some long forgotten other bunch that had got their backs up

 

[atpollard]

From THEOPEDIA:

Calvinism is the theological system associated with the Reformer John Calvin that emphasizes the rule of God over all things as reflected in its understanding of Scripture, God, humanity, salvation, and the church. In popular vernacular, Calvinism often refers to the Five Points of Calvinistic doctrine regarding salvation, which make up the acrostic TULIP. In its broader sense, Calvinism is associated with Reformed theology.​

An important early distinction that mist be made in any discussion of "Calvinism" is whether one is seeking to discuss the VERNACULAR "Calvinism" associated with "TULIP" (in which case, as a Particular Baptist with traditions going back to WYCLIFFE and HUSS and ZWINGLI and through JOHN SMYTH to obtain our modern name, I am a Calvinist) or the more comprehensive REFORMED THEOLOGY (in which case as a Baptist, I am NOT a Calvinist).

Vernacular Calvinism was born out of the battle between the Articles of Remonstrances (Arminianism) and their rejection by the Synod of Dort which laid the foundation for what would become "T.U.L.I.P.". Vernacular Calvinism centers on only one question - HOW DOES GOD SAVE? - monergisticly or synergisticly?

Reformed Theology grew out of State Churches and covers the full spectrum of Christian life and beliefs. Baptists hold to several "Baptist Distinctives" (beliefs that define us as Baptists) which are contrary to Reformed Theology. The 'Gold Standard' for defining Reformed Theology is probably the Westminster Confession of Faith.

So which "Calvinism" have you come to discuss? TULIP or REFORMED THEOLOGY?
(There is no "Calvinist" Church like there is a Methodist Church or a Roman Catholic Church. 'Calvinism' is always a slang for something else.)

 

[Jonaitis]

This is a separate thread from my other one on the great man himself.

One of my old elders said Calvin wasn't a Calvinist.

I understand there have been many waves referred to as Calvinist:

- around 1540-1570 in various countries
- around 1610-1630 in various countries
- around 1880-1920 in the Netherlands
- around 1970-2019 in England
- more recently in the USA

And were the Huguenots (who emigrated from France a lot) a little bit "Calvinist"?

At any rate it appears each wave or elements within the waves, believed different things from each other, presented to us often in a dumbed-down form.

Are some of the waves or elements or sources worth the while for the average lay person taking any notice of them these days?

"Reformed" has recently became a catch all phrase for people who simply agree with the Doctrines of Grace (T.U.L.I.P.), even though it is widely accepted that the term "Reformed" is a body of tradition that carries more luggage than a few points on predestination and divine providence. "Calvinist" is a term accepted for people who only agree with the Doctrines of Grace, but don't follow the tradition once held by and handed down from the earliest Reformers and Puritans. This is generally what the Reformed community today understands regarding these terms (despite what wikipedia might say).

 

[Amittai]

Big thanks to everybody - am much clearer now!

 

[The Liturgist]

I thought the dispute between Jansenism and the Dominicans was resolved at the Congregation de Auxiliis? Basically it was agreed that the Jansenists couldn't call the Dominicans "Pelagians" and the Dominicans couldn't call Jansenists "Calvinists" lol. In other words, agree to disagree.

I thought Jansenism ultimately was suppressed? The Dominicans have historically been the guardians of Roman Catholic orthodoxy, and usually have prevailed in controversies involving their position (one rare exception in the early 20th century was the reversal of the Dominican and Franciscan position on the Chinese Rites Controversy adopted in the 1740s, which promoted the genocidal Kangxi Emperor banning Christianity in China with many martyrs, to adopting the Jesuit position of tolerating the Chinese traditional funeral / ancestral rites which would have placated the Kangxi Emperor, but arguably constitutes syncretism).

 

[The Liturgist]

As a Particular Baptist, I would be viewed as a “5 point Calvinist” by the TULIP Soteriology yardstick, but I can guarantee that the beliefs and the writings of John Calvin had ZERO influence on my theology. I will leave you to debate schisms in the Catholic Church from days gone by, but the writings of the Synod of Dort are a better place to look for the birth of “Calvinism” in my opinion (although the reality is that the teachings of ‘TULIP’ Sotierology were being authored by old men when John Calvin was still wearing little boy pants.

The belief that John 6:44 and Ephesians 2:1-10 (among other places like Romans 9) say what they mean and mean what they say is the real cornerstone of Calvinism / Reformed Theology / the Doctrines of Grace. It is an internally coherent theology born of Scripture founded on an interpretation anchored in a handful of (we would argue) very clear verses. ‘The Institutes’ is not the rock upon which Calvinism is built.

So if you had to summarize into bullet points the distinctions between Calvin’s theology and TULIP/five point Calvinism/predestination, how would you do it?