The logical problem with Calvin and Calvinism

[tonychanyt]

I find no error in logic.

Are you familiar with First-Order Logic?

 

[HarleyER]

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.

Matt 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you yourselves say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.​

​

 

[enoob57]

​

​

Matt 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you yourselves say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.​

When Jesus came He was forming the NT of His blood... the canon would not be formed/written till 30 yrs after Jesus' death! It was the OT Scriptures that is spoken of above... not an internal communicaton!

John 6:44-45 (KJV)
[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
[45] It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. This is speaking of OT Scripture

Point being... Peter was not regenerated or indwelt by The Holy Spirit it was the OT Scripture that gave insight to Peter's statement...
John 8:47 (KJV)
[47] He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

 

[HarleyER]

When Jesus came He was forming the NT of His blood... the canon would not be formed/written till 30 yrs after Jesus' death! It was the OT Scriptures that is spoken of above... not an internal communicaton!

John 6:44-45 (KJV)
[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
[45] It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. This is speaking of OT Scripture

Point being... Peter was not regenerated or indwelt by The Holy Spirit it was the OT Scripture that gave insight to Peter's statement...
John 8:47 (KJV)
[47] He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

The text doesn't say "Blessed are you Peter because you have a lot of insight...". Peter saw the miracles and knew just enough of the Old Testament, just as much as a lot of people who rejected Christ. The text states that God the Father revealed who Christ was to Peter, and he came to know Jesus was the Christ. People in the Old Testament were saved by looking forward to the Messiah. People after the resurrection look backwards. We are not "saved" by the Holy Spirit. We are saved by the blood of Christ. The difference between the two groups in the OT and NT is that the Holy Spirit now indwells believers so that we might walk in a worthy manner by keeping Christ's commandments.

John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.​

As the text in Matthew plainly states, Peter regeneration was the result that God revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Messiah and by that knowledged he was blessed (an Old Testament term for being made righteous). Peter salvation is no different than anyone elses. This is exactly the same way God saves all men (and women).

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.​

​

 

[enoob57]

The text doesn't say "Blessed are you Peter because you have a lot of insight...". Peter saw the miracles and knew just enough of the Old Testament, just as much as a lot of people who rejected Christ. The text states that God the Father revealed who Christ was to Peter, and he came to know Jesus was the Christ. People in the Old Testament were saved by looking forward to the Messiah. People after the resurrection look backwards. We are not "saved" by the Holy Spirit. We are saved by the blood of Christ. The difference between the two groups in the OT and NT is that the Holy Spirit now indwells believers so that we might walk in a worthy manner by keeping Christ's commandments.

John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.​

As the text in Matthew plainly states, Peter regeneration was the result that God revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Messiah and by that knowledged he was blessed (an Old Testament term for being made righteous). Peter salvation is no different than anyone elses. This is exactly the same way God saves all men (and women).

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.​

​

The problem is your understanding of context... the whole of the New Testament is it being spoken and later written to join the OT canon already existent... Nothing in the text suggest The Father bypassed His Scripture and put that thought into Peter. That is you placing that upon the text... John 17 clearly lays out the intention of God to communicate to mankind His written Word! The oracles of God has always been God speaking His Word and having it written down... It is clearly stated by God here:
2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[enoob57]

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

​

two hermeneutical principles must be understood of the above:

• Didactic texts set doctrine and narratives help inform doctrine. Narratives are meant to tell a story, not teach foundational theological beliefs. Acts 13 is a narrative and though it can help us better understand our doctrinal beliefs it should not be foundational to develop our theology.
• Text without context is a pretext for proof-text. We have to look at what is happening at the time the author is writing in order to better understand the possible intent of the author. With this in mind let’s look at the historical context of Acts 13.

Note: it should be noted, that this is true of any proof text being used to support any given perspective. That is why we call it “proof texting.” Most respectable theologians and scholars know these types of texts can be cited to support both sides of the argument, therefore great care must be taken to fully vet the context and seek to discover the true intention of the biblical author for every proof text that is offered.

a quote from Does Acts 13:48 Support Calvinism?
Before Christ began his public ministry there were both Jews and Gentiles who worshipped God and genuinely believed in what revelation they had been given. They were “God-fearing” men and women who sincerely loved the Lord but simply were not yet aware of the gospel of Christ. In Acts 13:16 we are shown these are the people the apostles were addressing, “Fellow Israelites and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me!” Many God-fearing Gentiles genuinely believed in God and had not yet grown calloused in the religiosity of the Pharisaical teachings. No one could rightly describe these God-fearing Gentiles as “totally disabled, hardened or spiritually dead” individuals in need of an irresistible calling. Instead, they were “appointed” or “previously disposed” for eternal life as believers who already worship God.

What is the appointment to eternal life?

The Calvinist: before the foundation of the world God decided who and who wouldn't be saved...
The Provisionist: before the foundation of the world God would provide a way for all men to be saved through the use of God's inspired Word...

In order to have a balanced theology the whole council of God must be applied...
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.

 

[HarleyER]

The problem is your understanding of context... the whole of the New Testament is it being spoken and later written to join the OT canon already existent... Nothing in the text suggest The Father bypassed His Scripture and put that thought into Peter. That is you placing that upon the text... John 17 clearly lays out the intention of God to communicate to mankind His written Word! The oracles of God has always been God speaking His Word and having it written down... It is clearly stated by God here:
2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The problem is your understanding of context...

That sounds like a typical Arminean argument. If God the Father did not reveal Christ to Peter (as Matthew claims), how is Peter blessed? And I was using only one of several examples. How about Paul on the road to Damacus. He clearly understood the Old Testament yet his heart was set on destroying Christianity until God revealed Himself to Paul. There wasn't a "choice". Paul, after all, had lots of time to choose.

Nothing in the text suggest The Father bypassed His Scripture and put that thought into Peter.

That is not what I said. The text states that God had revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ. I see nothing in the text that you are citing that has to do with anything.

As far as John 17 is concerned, an honest reading of the Gospel of John and Romans illustrate what I'm saying. Quite frankly, I could never understand those books until I understood the sovereignty of God. People like to quote John 3:16 but they neglect the context:

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”​

​

The problem with Armineanism is that they simply do not want to acknowledge God is sovereign in all things, including salvation. Grant it, election is a mystery but there it is. One can embrace the fact even if we don't fully understand God's will. Noah was peaching to the people for 120 years all the while he was building an ark that would only hold eight.

 

[HarleyER]

two hermeneutical principles must be understood of the above:

• Didactic texts set doctrine and narratives help inform doctrine. Narratives are meant to tell a story, not teach foundational theological beliefs. Acts 13 is a narrative and though it can help us better understand our doctrinal beliefs it should not be foundational to develop our theology.
• Text without context is a pretext for proof-text. We have to look at what is happening at the time the author is writing in order to better understand the possible intent of the author. With this in mind let’s look at the historical context of Acts 13.

Note: it should be noted, that this is true of any proof text being used to support any given perspective. That is why we call it “proof texting.” Most respectable theologians and scholars know these types of texts can be cited to support both sides of the argument, therefore great care must be taken to fully vet the context and seek to discover the true intention of the biblical author for every proof text that is offered.

What is the appointment to eternal life?

The Calvinist: before the foundation of the world God decided who and who wouldn't be saved...
The Provisionist: before the foundation of the world God would provide a way for all men to be saved through the use of God's inspired Word...

In order to have a balanced theology the whole council of God must be applied...
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.

The Provisionist: before the foundation of the world God would provide a way for all men to be saved through the use of God's inspired Word...

This is really the path to universalism. God really doesn't know who is going to be saved. He just throws out the Word and come what may. Men are basically good. Just let them here the Gospel. Well, one could have the Son of God right before them, preaching the Word of God all the while performing miralces. Unless God changes the corrupt hearts it will do no good. There are countless examples in the Old and New Testament that shows this to be true.

As far as before the foundation God knowing us, one could use the example of Samson who was chosen before he was even born. David and Paul states the same thing.

God doesn't decide who goes to hell. All of us deserve to go to hell. The fact that God saves some of us is due to His grace and mercy.

This isn't "balanced theology". This is corrupt theology.

 

[enoob57]

That sounds like a typical Arminean argument.

I am a Provisionist SOTERIOLOGY 101

If God the Father did not reveal Christ to Peter (as Matthew claims), how is Peter blessed?

How is anyone blessed when they have God's Word in their heart... for you to ignore God's use of HIs Word OT does not follow with the intent of God in John 17
John 17:8 (KJV)
[8] For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Luke 24:32 (KJV)
[32] And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

And I was using only one of several examples. How about Paul on the road to Damacus. He clearly understood the Old Testament yet his heart was set on destroying Christianity until God revealed Himself to Paul. There wasn't a "choice". Paul, after all, had lots of time to choose.

He had an inner conflict with this
Acts 9:5 (KJV)
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Nothing in the text suggest The Father bypassed His Scripture and put that thought into Peter.

That is not what I said. The text states that God had revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ. I see nothing in the text that you are citing that has to do with anything.

John 17:8 (KJV)
[8] For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Luke 24:32 (KJV)
[32] And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

As far as John 17 is concerned, an honest reading of the Gospel of John and Romans illustrate what I'm saying. Quite frankly, I could never understand those books until I understood the sovereignty of God. People like to quote John 3:16 but they neglect the context:

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”The problem with Armineanism is that they simply do not want to acknowledge God is sovereign in all things, including salvation. Grant it, election is a mystery but there it is. One can embrace the fact even if we don't fully understand God's will. Noah was peaching to the people for 120 years all the while he was building an ark that would only hold eight.

Election of the individual to salvation is not a mystery as you put it ... as your claim is if not elected by God they will perish... so by the will of God people perish.
However God says this:
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
[9] The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

You if God doesn't willfully elect people they perish
God says I am not willing any should perish

This is not mystery as you claim but irrational leading of Calvinism... and God calls us to this:
Isaiah 1:18 (KJV)
[18] Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

You probably believe you are honoring God's Word but in examples given above you are perverting it...

 

[enoob57]

This is really the path to universalism.

Not what God says
Matthew 7:14 (KJV)
[14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

by the way according to your claims no one should be looking! Yet God claims there are few that do find it!

He just throws out the Word and come what may

Praise God for His truth
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 every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

look at that it says it specifically also

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.

Acts 28:23 (KJV)
[23] And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
[24] And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

One only need ask if election of individuals to salvation is true... why would Paul be trying to convince them of the truth of Scripture?
The system is bunk...

 

[HarleyER]

I am a Provisionist SOTERIOLOGY 101

How is anyone blessed when they have God's Word in their heart... for you to ignore God's use of HIs Word OT does not follow with the intent of God in John 17
John 17:8 (KJV)
[8] For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Luke 24:32 (KJV)
[32] And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?



He had an inner conflict with this
Acts 9:5 (KJV)
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.



John 17:8 (KJV)
[8] For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Luke 24:32 (KJV)
[32] And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Election of the individual to salvation is not a mystery as you put it ... as your claim is if not elected by God they will perish... so by the will of God people perish.
However God says this:
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
[9] The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

You if God doesn't willfully elect people they perish
God says I am not willing any should perish

This is not mystery as you claim but irrational leading of Calvinism... and God calls us to this:
Isaiah 1:18 (KJV)
[18] Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

You probably believe you are honoring God's Word but in examples given above you are perverting it...

Election of the individual to salvation is not a mystery as you put it ... as your claim is if not elected by God they will perish... so by the will of God people perish.

You would have a hard time explaining the Angel of Death in Egypt. No doubt some people heard of

I am a Provisionist SOTERIOLOGY 101

How is anyone blessed when they have God's Word in their heart... for you to ignore God's use of HIs Word OT does not follow with the intent of God in John 17
John 17:8 (KJV)
[8] For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Luke 24:32 (KJV)
[32] And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?



He had an inner conflict with this
Acts 9:5 (KJV)
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.



John 17:8 (KJV)
[8] For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Luke 24:32 (KJV)
[32] And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Election of the individual to salvation is not a mystery as you put it ... as your claim is if not elected by God they will perish... so by the will of God people perish.
However God says this:
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
[9] The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

You if God doesn't willfully elect people they perish
God says I am not willing any should perish

This is not mystery as you claim but irrational leading of Calvinism... and God calls us to this:
Isaiah 1:18 (KJV)
[18] Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

You probably believe you are honoring God's Word but in examples given above you are perverting it...

God DOESN'T want anyone to perish. The issue ISN"T how good and gracious God is. The issue IS how evil and sinful man is. Noah spent a 120 years preaching to no avail. Not ONE was "convinced". Why? Because men love evil more than they love God.

Your perspective is wrong. The issue isn't with God but with man. God simply exert His will on who He will be gracious and merciful to. We have nothing to boast about because it is all God's work.

 

[tonychanyt]

Some people claim Calvin was a 4-point Calvinist, so it might not be fair to lump him in with 5-point Calvinists.

Either way, they were not being first-order logistical.

 

[tonychanyt]

So, how love-logical were John or Mr. Aristotle?? How much did they connect their things to how to become and to love like Jesus?

John Calvin used Aristotle's logical system, which was okay. Personally, 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. Good question.

 

[TahitiRun]

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

I have an example that may be of interest. It's one that I've often thought about over the last 50 years or so. Wow...it sounds weird to say that. Through God's providence I was called and received Christ in my youth

I believe Calvin's doctrine of Man was decidedly flawed, though I'm not sure if it was due to an absence of FOL logic, a lack of spiritual discernment, or simply Calvin's unwillingness to part-ways with Greek philosophy. My guess would be that Calvin was hiding behind door number three. FOL logic would have probably produced a different doctrine.

For example: The term "soul", as Calvin used that term, was at odds with the actual Hebrew understanding of Nephesh. Employing FOL logic when reading the scriptures would have probably made a difference, though it would have required Calvin to look beyond Greek philosophy and I'm not sure he was able to do that, that is: God had not ordained Calvin to do so.

Calvin understood the term Nephesh from a Greek/Hellenistic perspective. He was influenced by not only Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, but also by those who were influenced by their teachings, such as Ambrose and Augustine.

This becomes clear when reading the various editions of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (ICR). Calvin's first Latin edition, c.1536, briefly covers the concept of Man's creation, shown here:

Chapter 1, Part B, Article 2 (excerpts as translated by Ford Lewis Battles):

"In order for us to come to a sure knowledge of ourselves we must first grasp the fact that Adam, parent of us all, was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27)".

"But when Adam slipped into sin this image and likeness of God was cancelled and effaced..."

Scripture, however, presents a different understanding than what Calvin asserted regarding the image of God being "cancelled" as shown here:

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Calvin's second edition, French c.1541, though more detailed than the first edition was also flawed, shown here:

Of the knowledge of Man, Chapter 15, Article II (excerpts translated by Robert White):

"II That man consists of soul and body ought not to be controverted. By the "soul" I understand an immortal, yet created essence, which is the nobler part of him. Sometimes it is called a "spirit". For though when these names are connected they have a different signification, yet when "spirit" is used separately, it means the same as "soul".

This is simply at odds with what scripture tells us. Scripture tells us that man does not "have" a soul, but rather man "became" a living soul (or being), as shown here:

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And man (i.e.: soul), contrary to what Calvin believed, is not an immortal being, as shown here:

1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Employing FOL logic here may have produced a different outcome concerning Calvin's thinking on the subject.

Calvin's final edition of his ICR, both Latin and French, c.1559 and c.1560 respectively, adds more language concerning the doctrine of Man, however his underlying premise of Man consisting of Body + Soul remained unchanged, shown here:

Knowledge of God the Creator, Chapter 15, Articles 1 and 2 (excerpts translated by Henry Beveridge):

"1. We have now to speak of the creation of man, not only because of all the works of God it is the noblest, and most admirable specimen of his justice, wisdom, and goodness, but, as we observed at the outset, we cannot clearly and properly know God unless the knowledge of ourselves be added. This knowledge is twofold,—relating, first, to the condition in which we were at first created; and, secondly to our condition such as it began to be immediately after Adam’s fall.

2. Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created essence, which is his nobler part. Sometimes he is called a spirit. But though the two terms, while they are used together differ in their meaning, still, when spirit is used by itself it is equivalent to soul, as when Solomon speaking of death says, that the spirit returns to God who gave it (Eccles. 12:7)."

The "knowledge" that Calvin asserts here does not actually bode well with scripture. When "spirit" is used by itself, it means "spirit/breath", not "soul". Soul (i.e.: man, living being), as described in scripture, is a compound of body + spirit, the whole Man if you will, as clearly stated in Gen 2:7. Spirit, on the other hand, is an element of the soul (i.e.: man) but is not the soul proper. And this distinction was not discerned by Calvin. Or if it was, he was unable to define it correctly.

It's clear that Calvin's thinking concerning the doctrine of "Man" was not only incorrect but embodied the very philosophy and traditions of men that Paul warned about, here:

Col 2:8 See that no one will be carrying you away as spoil through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,

So, from my perspective, had FOL been used by Calvin, reformed theology regarding the doctrine of Man would probably be different today, particularly with regards to the other doctrines it influences.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have an example that may be of interest. It's one that I've often thought about over the last 50 years or so. Wow...it sounds weird to say that. Through God's providence I was called and received Christ in my youth

I believe Calvin's doctrine of Man was decidedly flawed, though I'm not sure if it was due to an absence of FOL logic, a lack of spiritual discernment, or simply Calvin's unwillingness to part-ways with Greek philosophy. My guess would be that Calvin was hiding behind door number three. FOL logic would have probably produced a different doctrine.

For example: The term "soul", as Calvin used that term, was at odds with the actual Hebrew understanding of Nephesh. Employing FOL logic when reading the scriptures would have probably made a difference, though it would have required Calvin to look beyond Greek philosophy and I'm not sure he was able to do that, that is: God had not ordained Calvin to do so.

Calvin understood the term Nephesh from a Greek/Hellenistic perspective. He was influenced by not only Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, but also by those who were influenced by their teachings, such as Ambrose and Augustine.

This becomes clear when reading the various editions of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (ICR). Calvin's first Latin edition, c.1536, briefly covers the concept of Man's creation, shown here:

Chapter 1, Part B, Article 2 (excerpts as translated by Ford Lewis Battles):

"In order for us to come to a sure knowledge of ourselves we must first grasp the fact that Adam, parent of us all, was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27)".

"But when Adam slipped into sin this image and likeness of God was cancelled and effaced..."

Scripture, however, presents a different understanding than what Calvin asserted regarding the image of God being "cancelled" as shown here:

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Calvin's second edition, French c.1541, though more detailed than the first edition was also flawed, shown here:

Of the knowledge of Man, Chapter 15, Article II (excerpts translated by Robert White):

"II That man consists of soul and body ought not to be controverted. By the "soul" I understand an immortal, yet created essence, which is the nobler part of him. Sometimes it is called a "spirit". For though when these names are connected they have a different signification, yet when "spirit" is used separately, it means the same as "soul".

This is simply at odds with what scripture tells us. Scripture tells us that man does not "have" a soul, but rather man "became" a living soul (or being), as shown here:

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And man (i.e.: soul), contrary to what Calvin believed, is not an immortal being, as shown here:

1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Employing FOL logic here may have produced a different outcome concerning Calvin's thinking on the subject.

Calvin's final edition of his ICR, both Latin and French, c.1559 and c.1560 respectively, adds more language concerning the doctrine of Man, however his underlying premise of Man consisting of Body + Soul remained unchanged, shown here:

Knowledge of God the Creator, Chapter 15, Articles 1 and 2 (excerpts translated by Henry Beveridge):

"1. We have now to speak of the creation of man, not only because of all the works of God it is the noblest, and most admirable specimen of his justice, wisdom, and goodness, but, as we observed at the outset, we cannot clearly and properly know God unless the knowledge of ourselves be added. This knowledge is twofold,—relating, first, to the condition in which we were at first created; and, secondly to our condition such as it began to be immediately after Adam’s fall.

2. Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created essence, which is his nobler part. Sometimes he is called a spirit. But though the two terms, while they are used together differ in their meaning, still, when spirit is used by itself it is equivalent to soul, as when Solomon speaking of death says, that the spirit returns to God who gave it (Eccles. 12:7)."

The "knowledge" that Calvin asserts here does not actually bode well with scripture. When "spirit" is used by itself, it means "spirit/breath", not "soul". Soul (i.e.: man, living being), as described in scripture, is a compound of body + spirit, the whole Man if you will, as clearly stated in Gen 2:7. Spirit, on the other hand, is an element of the soul (i.e.: man) but is not the soul proper. And this distinction was not discerned by Calvin. Or if it was, he was unable to define it correctly.

It's clear that Calvin's thinking concerning the doctrine of "Man" was not only incorrect but embodied the very philosophy and traditions of men that Paul warned about, here:

Col 2:8 See that no one will be carrying you away as spoil through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,

So, from my perspective, had FOL been used by Calvin, reformed theology regarding the doctrine of Man would probably be different today, particularly with regards to the other doctrines it influences.

I don't know Calvin's works, but it seems to me you are sloughing the use of a word here:

"This is simply at odds with what scripture tells us. Scripture tells us that man does not "have" a soul, but rather man "became" a living soul (or being), as shown here: Gen 2:7 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'" Not only is it possible for man to become a living soul and thus to have a soul, but Calvin was specific about his use of "soul" in that quote you gave. He was not talking about what you are talking about. He may have been wrong to call it "soul", but at least he was careful to define it. It is consistent with Scripture to refer to a person as a soul, and yet also, to treat the soul as part of a person. Scripture also uses the word, "spirit", in more ways than what you describe, I think.

 

[TahitiRun]

I don't know Calvin's works, but it seems to me you are sloughing the use of a word here:

"This is simply at odds with what scripture tells us. Scripture tells us that man does not "have" a soul, but rather man "became" a living soul (or being), as shown here: Gen 2:7 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'" Not only is it possible for man to become a living soul and thus to have a soul, but Calvin was specific about his use of "soul" in that quote you gave. He was not talking about what you are talking about. He may have been wrong to call it "soul", but at least he was careful to define it. It is consistent with Scripture to refer to a person as a soul, and yet also, to treat the soul as part of a person. Scripture also uses the word, "spirit", in more ways than what you describe, I think.

Your response was kind of humorous. You actually demonstrated the problem with Calvin's lack of First-Order Logic, the very premise of the OP.

For example, when reading Gen 2:7, shown here:

Gen 2:7 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

You rephrased "man became" by asserting that it is "possible for man to become" and "thus to have a soul". In so doing, you demonstrated how Calvin was able to make Swiss Cheese out of the biblical text. After all, he was in Basel and Geneva at the time...lol

Years ago I came across a paper contrasting Platonism (the idea of Man = Body+Immortal Soul, Calvin's position) vs the Judeo-Christian concept (Man became Soul, and Soul = Body+Spirit).

I thought it might be of interest for those looking for more information. I believe the PDF file is still available for download. Here it is:

The concept of the soul in Plato and in early Judeo-Christian thought

open.bu.edu

 

[Mark Quayle]

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)

What you linked to with double predestination shows your op having been removed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your response was kind of humorous. You actually demonstrated the problem with Calvin's lack of First-Order Logic, the very premise of the OP.

For example, when reading Gen 2:7, shown here:

Gen 2:7 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

You rephrased "man became" by asserting that it is "possible for man to become" and "thus to have a soul". In so doing, you demonstrated how Calvin was able to make Swiss Cheese out of the biblical text. After all, he was in Basel and Geneva at the time...lol

Years ago I came across a paper contrasting Platonism (the idea of Man = Body+Immortal Soul, Calvin's position) vs the Judeo-Christian concept (Man became Soul, and Soul = Body+Spirit).

I thought it might be of interest for those looking for more information. I believe the PDF file is still available for download. Here it is:

The concept of the soul in Plato and in early Judeo-Christian thought

open.bu.edu

Perhaps I should have said, "that man became a living soul allows for the possibility that it is true, in some sense, that man HAS a living soul". God and his nature (as in, "character") are inseparable —He is WHAT he is— yet, he has a forgiving nature.

Notice that @tonychanyt doesn't excoriate Calvin and certainly not Calvinism. He doesn't even say that Calvin is wrong, but that "double predestination" has a logical flaw, as relates to FOL. He doesn't define double predestination. "It seems" to me that he meant to imply that double predestination is one of Calvinism's claims, but still, the conversation on that particular paragraph is left wide open.

@tonychanyt himself has said elsewhere that FOL is not useful in some circumstances. His OP, or so I read it, is to show that Calvin did not use FOL, nor precision of meaning in every proposition nor conclusion. Calvin would agree, I think. Like us, Calvin too, indulged in speculation wherever certainty does not prevail according to a human read of the Biblical text.

By the way, I tend to think of the soul as being the person; the body while alive is part of that soul, the spirit of that person is part of that soul, the body resurrected becomes part of that soul, and God's use of that person, (read: God's intentions for that person), is part of that soul —perhaps even the whole of that soul, in the end. But Calvin was kind enough to define what he meant by soul, (whether he was right by that or not), and to draw conclusions using that definition. I didn't see him there saying that his definition is even THE definition, as some others on this site do. (But, granted, I don't have the context of your quote).

 

[tonychanyt]

What you linked to with double predestination shows your op having been removed.

Thanks for pointing that out. Try Does God predestine someone to hell?

 

[HarleyER]

I have an example that may be of interest. It's one that I've often thought about over the last 50 years or so. Wow...it sounds weird to say that. Through God's providence I was called and received Christ in my youth

I believe Calvin's doctrine of Man was decidedly flawed, though I'm not sure if it was due to an absence of FOL logic, a lack of spiritual discernment, or simply Calvin's unwillingness to part-ways with Greek philosophy. My guess would be that Calvin was hiding behind door number three. FOL logic would have probably produced a different doctrine.

For example: The term "soul", as Calvin used that term, was at odds with the actual Hebrew understanding of Nephesh. Employing FOL logic when reading the scriptures would have probably made a difference, though it would have required Calvin to look beyond Greek philosophy and I'm not sure he was able to do that, that is: God had not ordained Calvin to do so.

Calvin understood the term Nephesh from a Greek/Hellenistic perspective. He was influenced by not only Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, but also by those who were influenced by their teachings, such as Ambrose and Augustine.

This becomes clear when reading the various editions of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (ICR). Calvin's first Latin edition, c.1536, briefly covers the concept of Man's creation, shown here:

Chapter 1, Part B, Article 2 (excerpts as translated by Ford Lewis Battles):

"In order for us to come to a sure knowledge of ourselves we must first grasp the fact that Adam, parent of us all, was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27)".

"But when Adam slipped into sin this image and likeness of God was cancelled and effaced..."

Scripture, however, presents a different understanding than what Calvin asserted regarding the image of God being "cancelled" as shown here:

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Calvin's second edition, French c.1541, though more detailed than the first edition was also flawed, shown here:

Of the knowledge of Man, Chapter 15, Article II (excerpts translated by Robert White):

"II That man consists of soul and body ought not to be controverted. By the "soul" I understand an immortal, yet created essence, which is the nobler part of him. Sometimes it is called a "spirit". For though when these names are connected they have a different signification, yet when "spirit" is used separately, it means the same as "soul".

This is simply at odds with what scripture tells us. Scripture tells us that man does not "have" a soul, but rather man "became" a living soul (or being), as shown here:

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And man (i.e.: soul), contrary to what Calvin believed, is not an immortal being, as shown here:

1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Employing FOL logic here may have produced a different outcome concerning Calvin's thinking on the subject.

Calvin's final edition of his ICR, both Latin and French, c.1559 and c.1560 respectively, adds more language concerning the doctrine of Man, however his underlying premise of Man consisting of Body + Soul remained unchanged, shown here:

Knowledge of God the Creator, Chapter 15, Articles 1 and 2 (excerpts translated by Henry Beveridge):

"1. We have now to speak of the creation of man, not only because of all the works of God it is the noblest, and most admirable specimen of his justice, wisdom, and goodness, but, as we observed at the outset, we cannot clearly and properly know God unless the knowledge of ourselves be added. This knowledge is twofold,—relating, first, to the condition in which we were at first created; and, secondly to our condition such as it began to be immediately after Adam’s fall.

2. Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created essence, which is his nobler part. Sometimes he is called a spirit. But though the two terms, while they are used together differ in their meaning, still, when spirit is used by itself it is equivalent to soul, as when Solomon speaking of death says, that the spirit returns to God who gave it (Eccles. 12:7)."

The "knowledge" that Calvin asserts here does not actually bode well with scripture. When "spirit" is used by itself, it means "spirit/breath", not "soul". Soul (i.e.: man, living being), as described in scripture, is a compound of body + spirit, the whole Man if you will, as clearly stated in Gen 2:7. Spirit, on the other hand, is an element of the soul (i.e.: man) but is not the soul proper. And this distinction was not discerned by Calvin. Or if it was, he was unable to define it correctly.

It's clear that Calvin's thinking concerning the doctrine of "Man" was not only incorrect but embodied the very philosophy and traditions of men that Paul warned about, here:

Col 2:8 See that no one will be carrying you away as spoil through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,

So, from my perspective, had FOL been used by Calvin, reformed theology regarding the doctrine of Man would probably be different today, particularly with regards to the other doctrines it influences.

Hmmmm.....

Calvin states that he believes the "spirit" and the "soul" to be one in the same and used interchangeably. Thus, that is how he treats the spirit/soul, using it interchangably. From my reading of the Institutes, the "spirit/soul" is created and immoral. The body is created, destroyed, and reborned (at the resurrection). Calvin goes into this in Book III, Ch 25.6 in his Institutes. This seems to be a rational interpretation.

However, you seem to be making a distinction of three parts; body, soul, and spirit. Could you provide a short descripture of each of these?