The logical problem with Calvin and Calvinism

[tonychanyt]

350 BCE, Aristotle discovered logical syllogism.

1854, George Boole published "An Investigation of the Laws of Thought" and started Boolean propositional logic.

1879, Gottlob Frege laid the groundwork for First-Order Logic. FOL underpins all modern science and mathematics.

1559, John Calvin finalized and published his Institutes. At best, in terms of logical reasoning, he could only analyze the scriptures using Aristotelian logic and contemporary scholastic rhetoric, which lacked the formal precision endowed in FOL. His systematic theology lacked the rigor and precision afforded by the modern axiomatic argumentation system. People often conflate logic and rhetoric.

E.g., Institutes, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 8:

Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature.

Calvin did not use "therefore" in the first-order logical sense. The words "therefore" and "seems" do not go together in their FOL senses. The word "seem" carries subjective evaluation. FOL's "therefore" carries objective precision. He did not think according to the precise syntax of FOL. No one did in the 16th century.

An example of such Calvinism logical flaw is double predestination. Try to prove that double predestination is true strictly by FOL and you will see.

Similarly, since the time of Frege, many theologians have not been trained in FOL. They suffer the same handicap. Aristotelian syllogism is a primitive precursor of FOL. (See appendix below.) There is now a more articulate and comprehensive logical system.

John Calvin used Aristotle's logical system, which was okay. I prefer the more up-to-date First-Order Logical system when I argue. Simpler logical systems are fine when I am not engaging in argumentation.

See also

• A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics
• Was it possible for Paul to become a G96-REPROBATE?

Appendix: Reformulate a syllogism into FOL
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.

Using Aristotelian syllogism, we can draw the following conclusion:

Socrates is mortal.

Now, let's rewrite the above using the FOL syntax.

∀x (Human(x) → Mortal(x))
Human(Socrates)

From these statements in FOL, one can logically infer:

Mortal(Socrates)

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

In 350 BCE, Aristotle started logical syllogism.

In 1879, Gottlob Frege laid the groundwork for First-Order Logic. FOL underpins all modern science and mathematics.

In 1559, John Calvin finalized and published his Institutes. At best, in terms of logical reasoning, he could only analyze the scriptures using Aristotelian logic and contemporary scholastic rhetoric which lacked the formal precision endowed in FOL. His systematic theology lacked that level of rigor and precision in modern formal argumentation.

Similarly, since the time of Frege, many theologians have not been trained in FOL. They suffer the same handicap. Aristolian syllogism is a primitive form FOL.

Interesting, could you provide an example from John Calvin where his lack of FOL skills possibly resulted in a flawed conclusion?

PS: my question is not scepticism or sarcasm but an honest curious question

 

[tonychanyt]

Interesting, could you provide an example from John Calvin where his lack of FOL skills possibly resulted in a flawed conclusion?

Institutes, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 8:

Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature.

Calvin did not use the word "therefore" in the first-order logical sense. The words "therefore" and "seems" do not go together in the FOL sense.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Institutes, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 8:



Calvin did not use the word "therefore" in the first-order logical sense. The words "therefore" and "seems" do not go together in the FOL sense.

Mm, to me it sounds like Calvin tentatively or reluctantly is drawing a conclusion but somehow is afraid of the outcome as well. Not necessarily a logic flaw as I read it, just hesitation.

 

[tonychanyt]

Mm, to me it sounds like Calvin tentatively or reluctantly is drawing a conclusion but somehow is afraid of the outcome as well. Not necessarily a logic flaw as I read it, just hesitation.

Sure. BTW, so far, I have not specifically pointed out any of his particular doctrines as false.

Are you familiar with FOL?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Institutes, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 8:



Calvin did not use the word "therefore" in the first-order logical sense. The words "therefore" and "seems" do not go together in the FOL sense.

How is that flawed? I'd have to read it in context to dispute you, and I'm lazy. Was he trying to prove something, or merely to show, just as he said, that it SEEMS so? If he only meant to do as he said, how is that flawed?

 

[tonychanyt]

How is that flawed? I'd have to read it in context to dispute you, and I'm lazy. Was he trying to prove something, or merely to show, just as he said, that it SEEMS so? If he only meant to do as he said, how is that flawed?

It is flawed in terms of FOL. Are you familiar with First-Order Logic?

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is flawed in terms of FOL. Are you familiar with First-Order Logic?

Meaning, it is not written according to FOL formal syntax?

To my mind, since FOL makes sense, it has been in use since the beginning, but was not written out so carefully. That is, the facts of how it works have always been there. It is not new; the syntax (language) is.

No, I'm not really familiar with it. I'd have to dedicate a good bit of time I don't have available to remember the meanings of the symbols. I'm familiar (50 years ago) with Boolean Algebra and ladder logic. That's the most formal I've gotten with different ways to represent logical thought.

 

[tonychanyt]

Meaning, it is not written according to FOL formal syntax?

Right.

No, I'm not really familiar with it. I'd have to dedicate a good bit of time I don't have available to remember the meanings of the symbols. I'm familiar (50 years ago) with Boolean Algebra and ladder logic. That's the most formal I've gotten with different ways to represent logical thought.

See First-Order Logic

 

[Mark Quayle]

Right.

See First-Order Logic

I'm reading as I can, though it would be better if I could do it in one sitting, and then repeat, what you linked to as something like "translating to FOL" so far, it is very enjoyable and engaging, though my comprehension doesn't work well after gaps in attention, which are necessary for my current activities/life. (I'm on call, troubleshooting over the phone, in the middle of a move.) Already, before even reading through it, I have had to review several times.

That's why I say that I will have to memorize terms/symbols.

https://www.bu.edu/linguistics/UG/course/lx502/_docs/lx502-propositional logic.pdf

 

[tonychanyt]

I'm reading as I can, though it would be better if I could do it in one sitting, and then repeat, what you linked to as something like "translating to FOL" so far, it is very enjoyable and engaging, though my comprehension doesn't work well after gaps in attention, which are necessary for my current activities/life. (I'm on call, troubleshooting over the phone, in the middle of a move.) Already, before even reading through it, I have had to review several times.

That's why I say that I will have to memorize terms/symbols.

https://www.bu.edu/linguistics/UG/course/lx502/_docs/lx502-propositional logic.pdf

Take it slow. Take it one day at a time. When you have a specific and technical question, feel free to ask me.

 

[HarleyER]

350 BCE, Aristotle discovered logical syllogism.

1854, George Boole published "An Investigation of the Laws of Thought" and started Boolean propositional logic.

1879, Gottlob Frege laid the groundwork for First-Order Logic. FOL underpins all modern science and mathematics.

1559, John Calvin finalized and published his Institutes. At best, in terms of logical reasoning, he could only analyze the scriptures using Aristotelian logic and contemporary scholastic rhetoric, which lacked the formal precision endowed in FOL. His systematic theology lacked that level of rigor and precision afforded by the modern axiomatic system of argumentation. People often conflate logic and rhetoric.

E.g., Institutes, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 8:


Calvin did not use "therefore" in the first-order logical sense. The words "therefore" and "seems" do not go together in their FOL senses. The word "seem" carries subjective evaluation. FOL's "therefore" carries objective precision. He did not think according to the precise syntax of FOL. No one did in the 16th century.

An example of such Calvinism logical flaw is double predestination. Try to prove that double predestination is true strictly by FOL and you will see.

Similarly, since the time of Frege, many theologians have not been trained in FOL. They suffer the same handicap. Aristotelian syllogism is a primitive precursor of FOL. (See appendix below.) There is now a more articulate and comprehensive logical system.

See also

• A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics
• Was it possible for Paul to become a G96-REPROBATE?

Appendix: Reformulate a syllogism into FOL
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.

Using Aristotelian syllogism, we can draw the following conclusion:

Socrates is mortal.

Now, let's rewrite the above using the FOL syntax.

∀x (Human(x) → Mortal(x))
Human(Socrates)

From these statements in FOL, one can logically infer:

Mortal(Socrates)

1559, John Calvin finalized and published his Institutes. At best, in terms of logical reasoning, he could only analyze the scriptures using Aristotelian logic and contemporary scholastic rhetoric, which lacked the formal precision endowed in FOL. His systematic theology lacked that level of rigor and precision afforded by the modern axiomatic system of argumentation.

This would be true if Calvin strictly used reasoning. However, much of Calvin's Institutes goes back to the writings of the ancient Christians writers, the Ante-Nicene church fathers, and Augustine. I happen to agree with Calvin's Institutes primarily because I went back and read these same church fathers, the creeds, and came to the same conclusions as Calvin. Augustine was a main driver in my understanding.

Calvin did not "conflate logic and rhetoric" and create some doctrine of original sin as you imply with your example (e.g., Institutes, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 8. Original sin is not strictly Calvin's teaching but stems from some of the early church fathers such as Ambrose of Milan (339-397).

As far as Calvin quoting Aristotle, Calvin was taking issue with Aristotle's famous line, "Know thyself". About this philosophy, Calvin states:

But since this precept [sic e.g. Know Thyself] is so valuable, we ought more diligently to avoid applying it perversely. This, we observe, has happened to certain philosophers, who, while urging man to know himself, propose the goal fo recognizing his own worth and excellence. And they would have him contemplate in himself nothing but what swells him with empty assurance and puffs him up with pride [Gen. 1:2].​

John Calvin, Institutes, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 8:​

We see Aristotle's flawed philosophy in the church today with "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." Same principle. Calvin is simply saying that if we truly want to know ourselves we will never look at our sinfulness-only the good. Aristotle was wrong.

Calvin's view (as well as the church fathers) Is really is very basic. Who is in control? Is God sovereign and in control of the affairs of man, or is man in control?

Will man ever admit he corrupt apart from God? The answer is no. If given the law with man admit he's corrupt? The answer is no. If man sees God's feeding him in the wilderness for forty years or on a hilltop with five loaves and two fishes, will he bow down to Him? The answer is no. If man sees God the Father raise His Son from the dead, will he then submit? The answer is no.

Yes, Calvin was right. Orignial sin is very real. Man, by nature, inclines to deluded oneself with admiration all the while neglecting the evil that exist within. Only God can open the ears and hearts to see help us see our true nature.

 

[tonychanyt]

Yes, Calvin was right. Orignial sin is very real.

See My take on Original Sin and follow up there.

 

[enoob57]

However, much of Calvin's Institutes goes back to the writings of the ancient Christians writers, the Ante-Nicene church fathers, and Augustine.

This is error... there is no theistic determinism in any writings before Augustine!
The period of the Church Fathers, commonly called the Patristic era, is generally considered to run from the end of New Testament times or end of the Apostolic Age (c. AD 100) to AD 451

 

[HarleyER]

This is error... there is no theistic determinism in any writings before Augustine!
The period of the Church Fathers, commonly called the Patristic era, is generally considered to run from the end of New Testament times or end of the Apostolic Age (c. AD 100) to AD 451

This is error... there is no theistic determinism in any writings before Augustine!
The period of the Church Fathers, commonly called the Patristic era, is generally considered to run from the end of New Testament times or end of the Apostolic Age (c. AD 100) to AD 451

Not a compelling argument. The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't discussed in any of the writings either and wasn't developed until 325AD until the Council of Nicene. I would hope you wouldn't consider that error.

 

[enoob57]

Not a compelling argument. The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't discussed in any of the writings either and wasn't developed until 325AD until the Council of Nicene. I would hope you wouldn't consider that error.

wasn't making an argument simply a fact of history... I don't have to argue against Calvinism it proves itself defeated in it's very begin... anyone can recognize truth and this is truth about Calvinism

SOTERIOLOGY 101

A Professor and former 5-Point Calvinist Discussing the Doctrines of Salvation, Election, Predestination, and God's Amazing Grace.

soteriology101.com

 

[HarleyER]

wasn't making an argument simply a fact of history... I don't have to argue against Calvinism it proves itself defeated in it's very begin... anyone can recognize truth and this is truth about Calvinism

SOTERIOLOGY 101

A Professor and former 5-Point Calvinist Discussing the Doctrines of Salvation, Election, Predestination, and God's Amazing Grace.

soteriology101.com

I appreciate the link and read a few of his articles and his statement of faith. This guy's view of "corporate election", foreknowledge, predestination and many other interpretations is not supported in scripture. His affirmations and denials are contradictory. For example, on sin he states:

“We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin.”​

“We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty”​

One can’t have it both ways. Either you have a nature inclined towards sin or you have a free will. You can’t have both. Do people CHOOSE to go to hell while others CHOOSE to go to heaven? This certainly didn’t happen to the Apostle Paul, Samson, Moses, etc. We could debate and discuss his various interpretations until the cows come home. But I have yet to meet a true believer, when giving their testimony, will say, “I was going my own way, BUT GOD….” God decides and calls us.

I always like to tell people who believe in “free will” that if they truly believe that a man is free to choose what is right or wrong, then simply try to live for a week not committing a sin and see how well that works. There is no such thing as “free will” nor is it used in the Bible (with the exception of a "free will offering"). There is God's will and there is man's will, and man's will is always against God's will. God must change our hearts and even after he changes our hearts, we might no longer practice sin but we will sin because of who we are.

I don’t base my theology on what some person states and all the web pages he can put up. There are lots of examples in the Bible and history of people going off the rails. There is nothing in the various articles that I read that convinces me he is correct and, as the example above shows, every evidence to show that he really doesn’t have his theology put together despite his assertions.

 

[enoob57]

One can’t have it both ways. Either you have a nature inclined towards sin or you have a free will.

This is an error of logic called either or ... when the reality is you can have a nature inclined to sin yet still see a need to respond to God's truth of the Gospel...

Do people CHOOSE to go to hell while others CHOOSE to go to heaven?

No they chose to believe the Gospel message and turn to Jesus to be made alive...
Romans 1:16 (KJV)
[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Your system states that a man must be regenerated first before he can believe... basically God saves them to save them...

I always like to tell people who believe in “free will” that if they truly believe that a man is free to choose what is right or wrong

Just because we are inclined to sin does not mean we can't see the need of Jesus and turn to Him to receive new life... 'THE GOSPEL'

I don’t base my theology on what some person states and all the web pages he can put up.

I guess that includes you here on the web also...

There are lots of examples in the Bible and history of people going off the rails.

I hope you don't think this is revelatory to me
Romans 3:10 (KJV)
[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

 

[HarleyER]

This is an error of logic called either or ... when the reality is you can have a nature inclined to sin yet still see a need to respond to God's truth of the Gospel...

No they chose to believe the Gospel message and turn to Jesus to be made alive...
Romans 1:16 (KJV)
[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Your system states that a man must be regenerated first before he can believe... basically God saves them to save them...


Just because we are inclined to sin does not mean we can't see the need of Jesus and turn to Him to receive new life... 'THE GOSPEL'

I guess that includes you here on the web also...

I hope you don't think this is revelatory to me
Romans 3:10 (KJV)
[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

I find no error in logic. You can't have a nature inclined to sin and yet want to respond to God. People are evil. Yes, we don't like to talk about that but that is our nature. It isn't that we are a bit evil.

Ephesian 2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,​

The ONLY way you can respond to God is if God gives you a new heart. And yes, that means that one must be regenerated first before he can believe.

If you want examples, there is no better example then the Apostle Paul. He was quite content hunting Christians until the Damascus Road. It certainly wasn't his choice.

Then we have Charles Wesley, that great Christian song writer (and Arminian in belief) in the wonderful hymn, "And Can It Be"?

1. He left His Father’s throne above—
   So free, so infinite His grace—
   Emptied Himself of all but love,
   And bled for Adam’s helpless race:
   ’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
   For, O my God, it found out me!
2. Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
   Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
   Thine eye diffused a quick’ning ray—
   I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
   My chains fell off, my heart was free,
   I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
3. No condemnation now I dread;
   Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
   Alive in Him, my living Head,
   And clothed in righteousness divine,
   Bold I approach th’ eternal throne,
   And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

Wonderful hymn. You have just about the entire TULIP all summed up in two stanzas of this one song, total depravity, unconditional election, irresistable grace, perseverance. This is the exactly the way it is with all true believers. Whether they want to admit it in their theology or not.

 

[enoob57]

The ONLY way you can respond to God is if God gives you a new heart

I need to see a verse in the Bible that states your claim! I can show you one that negates this claim of yours:
John 20:31 (KJV)
[31] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.