Is Calvinism mainly dependent on the writings of Paul?

[ananda]

Is Calvinism mainly dependent on the writings of Paul? Are the concepts of Calvinism supported in Scripture (outside of Paul's writings)?

 

[AMR]

No. Calvinism is just a synonym for the teachings of Scripture. Here are some verses you can investigate on your own:

TOTAL DEPRAVITY - See: Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8.21, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 64:6-7, Jeremiah 17:9, John 3:3, John 3:19, John 8:44, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 5:12, Romans 8:8, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:26

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - See: Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Isaiah 55:11, John 6:44, John 15:16, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:11-13, 1 Corinthians 1:26-29, Ephesians 1:3-5, Ephesians 2:4-7, 2 Timothy 1:9

LIMITED ATONEMENT - See: Psalm 34:22, Isaiah 53:8, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 20:28, Luke 1:68, John 3:16 (the Father gave His Son for whom? - according to this verse the Son was given for whoever believes in Him (the believing ones) not for the ones not believing in Him), John 10:14 -18, John 17:2,6,9; Acts 20:28, Romans 5:8-9, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 5:25, Hebrews 10:14, Titus 2:14, Revelation 5:9.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - See: Ezekiel 11:19-20, John 5:24 - the perfect tense verb should read has already passed from death unto life; John 6:37-39,44, Romans 8:8, Romans 8:30, Ephesians 2:1-10, Philippians 2:12-13, Colossians 2:13, James 1:18, Tutus 3:5, 1 John 5:1 - another perfect tense verb is used here and should be translated has already been born of God, 1 John 3:7, John 1: 12-13 but of God.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - See: Isaiah 43:1-3, Jeremiah 32:40, John 3:36, John 10:28, Romans 8:35-39, Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 2:10 God’s workmanship, Philippians 1:6, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 2 Timothy 1:12b & 4:18, 1 Peter 1:4-5, I John 2:19, Jude 24-25.

And, by the way, Paul is not a false prophet.

 

[Tallen]

Good post, AMR.

 

[ananda]

Thanks for the verses AMR! I appreciate the jump start to the topic.

 

[ananda]

And, by the way, Paul is not a false prophet.

Following my studies & in my conviction, I believe he was!

 

[heymikey80]

Following my studies & in my conviction, I believe he was!

That would have to conclude Paul deceived the 12 disciples of Jesus, plus Jesus' brothers, James and Jude.

In point of fact, Peter's responses to the same issues Paul addressed come to similar conclusions. Therefore, Peter would also have to be a false prophet (on the assumption you're objecting to Paul's theology, not some particular prediction).

If there's an argument to present about this issue, it's probably more appropriate in another forum than "Ask a Calvinist".

 

[ananda]

That would have to conclude Paul deceived the 12 disciples of Jesus, plus Jesus' brothers, James and Jude.

In point of fact, Peter's responses to the same issues Paul addressed come to similar conclusions. Therefore, Peter would also have to be a false prophet (on the assumption you're objecting to Paul's theology, not some particular prediction).

As this is not the proper forum for debate, I will only comment that Yeshua prophesied that Peter would be led away by another to doctrines which Yeshua did not preach, and in this direction he (Peter) was warned that should not go (John 21:18); this appears to be the reason why Yeshua, in the same chapter, repeatedly warned Peter that he should 1) pay attention to feeding his lambs & sheep (with true doctrine), repeated three times, and 2) follow Yeshua (not anyone else), repeated twice. It appears Peter was led away by Paul to the latter's foreign doctrine ("grace only" vs. Yeshua's doctrine of "faith & faithfulness") in his possible endorsement of Paul's writings and elsewhere. In essence, Peter would fail to be a faithful witness for Messiah, whereas Messiah seems to hint that John's testimony would remain true to Him to the end (John 21:21).

I believe James may have written his epistle as a refutation of Galatians (and all of Paul's writings in general); compare Gal 2:16 & Jas 2:24, and the perspectives on Abraham in both epistles. James may have written it to oppose the double-minded man (James 1:8) - sounds like Paul to me, who preached pro-Torah & anti-Torah in different places!

We can continue in a more appropriate forum if you (or anyone else) wishes to continue

 

[myhopeisfound]

That would have to conclude Paul deceived the 12 disciples of Jesus, plus Jesus' brothers, James and Jude.

In point of fact, Peter's responses to the same issues Paul addressed come to similar conclusions. Therefore, Peter would also have to be a false prophet (on the assumption you're objecting to Paul's theology, not some particular prediction).

If there's an argument to present about this issue, it's probably more appropriate in another forum than "Ask a Calvinist".

Hey Dont forget Ananias! He would have had to have been decieved also!
By both Paul and God(Acts 9).

 

[BrotherBob]

I see no conflict between Paul's writings and the epistle from James. If you want to discuss the perceived differences, perhaps a new thread would be appropriate.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

IMO Calvinism is dependent on the writings of Calvin, who was dependent on the thought of the Stoics, which is my main reason for rejection of Calvinism as a system of thought. Too much Greek determinism/doctrine-of-fate for me.

 

[AMR]

IMO Calvinism is dependent on the writings of Calvin, who was dependent on the thought of the Stoics, which is my main reason for rejection of Calvinism as a system of thought. Too much Greek determinism/doctrine-of-fate for me.

The doctrines of grace pre-date Calvin significantly, so perhaps you should shift your focus elsewhere if Calvin is not your cup of tea.

Start here:

The Christian's Reasonable Service: Ã Brakel's Magnum Opus

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I'm talking more about how Calvin's first writings were on various Stoic doctrines. I personally think Calvin was one of the most brilliant theological minds ever; but his fondness for the Stoics simply shows through a little too much.

 

[BrotherBob]

IMO Calvinism is dependent on the writings of Calvin, who was dependent on the thought of the Stoics, which is my main reason for rejection of Calvinism as a system of thought. Too much Greek determinism/doctrine-of-fate for me.

Are you talking about fatalism?

 

[Shulamite]

God's Sovereignty is ALL through the old and new testament, way before Calvin ever existed. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Enoch, David in Psalm 139, and so much more all talk about the Sovreignty of God and His predestining of the elect.

Do a Google search on it: "Sovreign election in the old testament" or "predestination in the old testament scriptures"

It's all there. Calvin simply was confirming in his teachings and writings what was ALREADY established by the Word of God in both the old and new testament.

Hope this helps.

 

[heymikey80]

I'm talking more about how Calvin's first writings were on various Stoic doctrines. I personally think Calvin was one of the most brilliant theological minds ever; but his fondness for the Stoics simply shows through a little too much.

Mmm, Christianity's rhetorical methods are significantly associated with subverting credible viewpoints on their own terms. Paul's terminology toward Gentiles rings like Stoics, but it's not. Paul's view of God is much more involved and history-oriented than any Stoic. That involvement of God in history slams Stoicism's ahistoricity and thus its buddhist-like detachment of the Good from reality.

By the same token, Paul also subverts Judaism's terminology on legal justification, and John subverts Gnostics' terminology on spirituality, holiness, godhood, and Jesus subverts Caesar's terminology on salvation and Judaism's terminology on doing the Law as well as legal righteousness, much as Paul does.

 

[Jeffersonian]

when i didnt believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace, i thought it was a ''Paul thing''. but then, is all over the bible, you can see in the Old testament. God chose israel, he chose his prophets, then when Jesus came, he chose his diciples. the issue is that Paul knew he was a living testimony of God's predestination, and you can see that when you check how he came to the faith.

 

[Shulamite]

when i didnt believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace, i thought i was a ''Paul thing''. but then, is all over the bible, you can see in the Old testament. God chose israel, he chose his prophets, then when Jesus came, he chose his diciples. the issue is that Paul knew he was a living testimony of God's predestination, and you can see that when you check how he came to the faith.

Agreed!

 

[epistemaniac]

Walter.... Calvin self-consciously followed in the footsteps of Augustine much more than any Stoic writer. Consulting the index in the Institutes puts that beyond doubt. In the following I will provide quotes from Breen & McNeill’s 2009 book entitled “John Calvin: A study in French humanism”. I will just give the page number to this edition should you want to look up the quotes yourself…

In any case, while Calvin had his influences, its not enough to simply note that he did have them, after all everyone is influenced in some way by others. The question is really `was he reforming his views always according to and in submission to the Scriptures?' After all, during Calvin’s day everyone who was trained in the university would have come into contact with Greek philosophers, since the cry of Humanism and the scholastics was "ad fontes!", or "to the sources".



One example of another great reformer being influenced by some aspects of stoic philosophy is Zwingli: “Zwingli had been trained in the classics, especially in Plato, the Stoics, and neo-Platonism, under Bünzli in Basel, Heinrich Wölflin in Bern, in Vienna under Conrad Celtis, and throughout by the reading of Erasmus. His debt to Seneca is as great as that to Plato, and both conditioned his attitude to the Scriptures. (p76).
Also, it would have to be asked `which Stoic was Calvin wrongly influenced by?’



Evidently, the Stoics did not agree amongst themselves in lock step uniformity, so one can’t say in a broad stroke “Calvin too readily identified with the Stoics” since the Stoics disagreed amongst themselves. The Stoic philosopher Seneca was himself critical of older stoic philosophers: “The popularity of Seneca in the Renaissance and early Reformation is well-attested. His criticism of the old Stoic not withstanding…” (p73).


In fact is was said that the scholar Sadoleto was himself “influenced” by the Stoics, and evidently since he was a Cardinal in the Roman Catholic church, it’s a given that Calvin disagreed with him on many important theological issues, thus adhering to certain aspects of stoic philosophy doesn’t therefore automatically make someone a Calvinist.



One other scholar who was heavily influenced by the stoic Seneca was Erasmus. Given Luther and Calvin’s fundamental disagreements with Erasmus on very important theological matters, its just one more indicator that one could think of one’s self as positively influenced by stoic philosophy and yet be in fundamental disagreement with the theology known as “Calvinism” or “Reformed”. “Erasmus had written that it was his desire that “some man more learned, more fortunate, less occupied than we, should add to this edition as much as we have added to the preceding, so that Seneca might be read without weariness and with profit. (p 77).



And in the following quote it is likewise obvious that there were differing factions among the stoics in that some could be called “mild” stoics…: “Though Petrarch attacked the reigning scholasticism he remained profoundly Christian. He warns constantly that the Christian must always survive the humanist. Less and less timid did humanism become, till with Sadoleto one “is convinced that to make Christians, it is first of all necessary to make men.” He preached a mild Stoicism, more like that of Horace than Epictetus.” (p68)



Here are some aspects of stoicism that you might agree with, but if you do, you would have to concede that agreement with the stoics is not tantamount to agreement with error, unless of course you are willing to say that you must likewise be in error since you are in agreement with this or that aspect of stoic philsophy: “Stoicism stood for the equality of all men alike before God and the world-order, apart from initiation into the “mysteries.”…. Stoicism promoted free investigation, the scientific spirit.” (ibid, p71) “in Seneca, as in Virgil, there is present a strong sense of sin, with an accompanying practice of self-examination and sensitiveness to conscience…..” (p72) If you can agree with any or all of these points, then you are in agreement with the stoics!!


The second thing to point out is that if Calvin was influenced by the stoics, it doesn't follow from this that it is, in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing, ie that doesn’t make Calvin necessarily wrong. After all, to say that something is false for no other reason than that it was believed by the stoics is to commit the informal fallacy "The Genetic Fallacy". A proposition or idea is not false based solely on the source of the idea. Likely the stoics believed that 2+2=4, but just because they believe this and they were stoics, it doesn’t mean that the belief must therefore be false. The real question then is not "did Calvin allow himself to be influenced by the Stoics" but is rather, "did Calvin allow himself to be influenced by the Stoics and is it the case that wherever this happened, their thought was out of line with the Scriptures?"



So what you would have to show is the agreement Calvin might have with a certain aspect of Stoic philosophy which was itself, contrary to the Scriptures, in order for this discussion (Calvin was influenced by the stoics) to mean much of anything .


I will leave you with these thoughts from Breen and McNeil: “None of the greater minds of the Reformation accepted a simon-pure Stoicism. They drew their major promises from the profounder and broader positions of the New Testament and the fathers. Yet not even the New Testament was without its historical preparation in Stoicism. Paul quotes the Stoic Aratus. The friendliness of Christianity to many of the Stoic conceptions could not but be felt by the serious humanist. That this philosophy was inadequate for saving men who after all had 1500 years of church history behind them is apparent…. Calvin criticizes Stoicism and never speaks of “our Stoicism,” as he does of “our religion”…. (p73).

 

[Rylick]

No. Calvinism is just a synonym for the teachings of Scripture. Here are some verses you can investigate on your own:

TOTAL DEPRAVITY - See: Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8.21, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 64:6-7, Jeremiah 17:9, John 3:3, John 3:19, John 8:44, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 5:12, Romans 8:8, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:26

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - See: Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Isaiah 55:11, John 6:44, John 15:16, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:11-13, 1 Corinthians 1:26-29, Ephesians 1:3-5, Ephesians 2:4-7, 2 Timothy 1:9

LIMITED ATONEMENT - See: Psalm 34:22, Isaiah 53:8, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 20:28, Luke 1:68, John 3:16 (the Father gave His Son for whom? - according to this verse the Son was given for whoever believes in Him (the believing ones) not for the ones not believing in Him), John 10:14 -18, John 17:2,6,9; Acts 20:28, Romans 5:8-9, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 5:25, Hebrews 10:14, Titus 2:14, Revelation 5:9.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - See: Ezekiel 11:19-20, John 5:24 - the perfect tense verb should read has already passed from death unto life; John 6:37-39,44, Romans 8:8, Romans 8:30, Ephesians 2:1-10, Philippians 2:12-13, Colossians 2:13, James 1:18, Tutus 3:5, 1 John 5:1 - another perfect tense verb is used here and should be translated has already been born of God, 1 John 3:7, John 1: 12-13 but of God.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - See: Isaiah 43:1-3, Jeremiah 32:40, John 3:36, John 10:28, Romans 8:35-39, Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 2:10 God’s workmanship, Philippians 1:6, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 2 Timothy 1:12b & 4:18, 1 Peter 1:4-5, I John 2:19, Jude 24-25.

And, by the way, Paul is not a false prophet.

Oh my goodness, AMR! Praise God for blessing you with such wisdom! I appreciated your reply in my post and wanted to thank you. Paul is in fact, not a false prophet. His testimony is quite amazing too... It's amazing how God saves even those who persecute His own. No person is beyond redemption. Such grace is beautiful.

 

[singlecandle]

Seeing how God elected the Jews is a major argument in favor of Calvinism.
God didn't elect them because they were great in number and He surely didn't choose them because of their obedience to Him.
God's faithfulness to His election of them and the promises HE made to them are still evident even to this day. So, the doctrine of election is very foundational to understand God's dealing with mankind.

Also, thanks goes out to AMR for posting really great Scripture verses