Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Reformed Tradition Versus Calvinism (Non-Exhaustive)

Tellaro, Italy-Travel And Leisure-Facebook
Reformed Tradition

W.S. Reid explains the Reformed Tradition as having the term 'Reformed' distinguishing the Calvinistic from Lutheran and Anabaptist traditions. Reid (1996: 921).

The Reformed tradition being from Ulrich Zwingli, the first reformer from Zurich and John Calvin of Geneva. Reid (1996: 922).

Calvin's views have been followed from the time of the Reformation until today and persons 'have not always followed exactly the same line of thinking or development'. Reid (1996: 921).

Reid states that therefore in the Reformed tradition, Calvinists, while in basic agreement on theological issues have differences based on historical understanding and geography. Reid (1996: 921).

It is stated the tradition was first developed in Northwest Europe in the 16th Century in Switzerland, France, Holland, Germany. Perhaps Germanic Kingdoms or like is better, as Germany was not yet a nation. Also Hungary was influenced as was the Waldensian Church of Italy. Basically, Italian territories, again Italy not yet one nation.

Nation states being more of a development later in history and so the situation with Germany and Italy as known today would be common in the 16 Century.

Cairns notes the 'Reformed and Presbyterian churches', followed Calvin in France, Holland, Scotland, Switzerland and Hungary. Cairns (1981: 283).

Calvinism

Reid writes that Calvin was often regarded as 'the systematizer of the Reformation'. Reid (1996: 186).

He basically made a theological system of/from Biblical doctrines.

Noted in my United Kingdom, PhD:

Calvin was...

...One who systemized Scripture, and a vast number of the doctrines that came from Calvin’s work are within the system known as Calvinism. Green (1971: ii).

My Use Of Terms

Academically, it seems difficult, perhaps not reasonable to academically and technically, definitively, historically separate the terms 'Reformed' from 'Calvinist' and Reformed Tradition from Calvinism.

On the other hand in practical terms today the terms are at times used differently.

In my case as a theologian and philosopher of religion, I prefer the use of Reformed over Calvinist for a few reasons.

True, I do hold to TULIP, but even those theologies are debated within and are complicated.

For example, some deterministic Presbyterians deny any human free will whatsoever and yet claim persons 'freely' believe when regenerated. Although I certainly agree God must initiate regeneration and it is irresistible grace in a sense, I do not see God using force and coercion in the process. Basically theologically, God regenerates and persuades, moves and molds the elect that have limited free will to accept salvation. This could be seen as 'freely', but I intellectual prefer my studied terms and explanation.

Philosophically, I view God as first cause, cause1 causing the regeneration of secondary cause, cause2 in election without force or coercion. Non-election would happen in a similar way as cause1 does not regenerate cause2 and cause 2 remains in sin without force or coercion.

I am definitely and definitively not a 'confused Arminian', as clearly I am a soft-determinist and compatibilist, based on theological and philosophical research and reasoning, not holding to libertarian free will and incompatibilism.

In today's theological and cultural context my view may better fit under an umbrella of Reformed, as in via the Reformation, influenced by John Calvin and John S. Feinberg, notably, and yet not Lutheran or Anabaptist; as opposed to more strictly Calvinistic. Calvin and Feinberg being very crucial guides in the development of views, but philosophical thinking, via philosophy of religion also was very crucial.

I understand that there is a consistency approaching free will and determinism in both the disciplines of theology and philosophy.

Not strictly views developed from Calvin or Calvinism.

But to call myself Protestant would not be more accurate, as today many Protestant churches are apostate and quite liberal. And there are negative political connotations in places such as Ireland and the United Kingdom which do not involve me whatsoever.

I also for social and geographical reason, am no longer attending a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) church, but am back with the Mennonite Brethren Church (MB) where I was baptized and attended by undergrad Biblical Studies degree.

It was actually a Mennonite Brethren professor, that is now a Pastor of a major local MB church that was the first to tell me in his office, that God did not want to save everyone.

Now perhaps he meant it as God's permissible will (will2) and not his perfect will (will1), but this understanding verified the Reformed track I was on, even at that time, before publicly labeling myself as Reformed about a decade later, as I had done more serious, academic research.

There is significant Reformed thought within Mennonite and Anabaptist circles.

As well, I hold primarily to Believer's Baptism (Matthew 28) and will acknowledge infant baptism as not heresy, but a theological construct that was documented as being practiced by early Church fathers Ireneaus and Origen.

Therefore, it is possible Reformed Theologian is a more accurate term in my situation, but 'Calvinist' would not be untrue, but the term does not seem quite as accurate as description largely based on more modern interpretations of terminology.

CAIRNS, EARLE E. (1981) Christianity Through The Centuries, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GREEN, JAY (1971) Five Points of Calvinism, ‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers.

REID, W.S. (1996) ‘Calvinism', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

REID, W.S. (1996) ‘The Reformed Tradition', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

The Planet Of The Cats-Google+

















January 15, 2014

40 comments:

  1. You actually make it appear really easy with your presentation
    however I to find this matter to be really one thing that I
    believe I might by no means understand. It kind of feels too complicated and very large for me.
    I'm taking a look forward to your subsequent publish, I'll attempt to get the cling of it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Girl, 5, tells of her terror after teacher locked her in a CLOSET ... and then went home without telling anyone she was there:Daily Mail

    More crazy...

    And I thought losing my first PhD appointment @ Manchester for standing on my Reformed views in the light of the problem of evil, was bad...

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'Bully, sleaze, & lie?'

    A web mini-series on internet marketing (2014)...

    ReplyDelete
  4. A preacher dies, and when he gets to heaven, he sees a New York cab driver who has more crowns. He says to an angel, "I don't get it. I devoted my whole life to my congregation." The angel says, "We reward results. Did your congregation always pay attention when you gave a sermon?" The preacher says, "Once in a while someone fell asleep." The angel says, "Right. And when people rode in this guy's taxi, they not only stayed awake, but they usually prayed!" …..Mikey's Funnies (funnies-owner@lists.MikeysFunnies.com) by way of “Christian Voices” (ChristianVoices@att.net)

    ReplyDelete
  5. dear russ
    howard sent us all his communications regarding mary after your e-mail. trudy communicated with him. so thanks.
    i also replied to some material in your blog, but then it got complicated. it asked for my password. if i have one, i don't know it. so i gave up. however, i will try to repicate, more or less, what i said.
    You said that you essentially agreed with a CBC professor who said something to the effect that God did not necessarily want everyone to be saved. I do not want to misrepresent your position. In 2 Peter 3:9 it says that God "is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." I know that there is perhaps a Calvinistic way of interpreting that verse. However, I think that 1 Timothy 2:4 is less ambiguous in saying, "who (God) desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
    It seems to me from the standpoint of Biblical Realism that the divine desire for universal salvation is quite clear. Although, I can imagine other theological difficulties arising.

    love Gerry

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Gerry it was John Neufeld. I have dealt with the 2 Peter 3: 9. I admit Erickson states there is God’s perfect will (will1) and the permissible will is (will2) what actually takes place. God would like to save all (will1) but does not (will2). This is a reasonable possibility without really contradicting what John stated because it could be opined that if all persons were a certain way, (will1) would occur, but as they are not, (will2) occurs. Of course there is the philosophical issue of God causing, but it is possible as God knows a person he wills, idealistically/possibly/hypothetically the person could be different but for divine reasons, again God knowing what the person is actually like and will be like, the person is caused toward hell without force or coercion. On more than one occasion online I have decided to look at 2 Peter 3:9 and I think in Chap. 2 the author is discussing non-believers/false prophets and in Chap. 3 it is addressed to believers as in ‘you’ where you noted and I have blogged on, with notable verses both Chapters.

    I note in the link below other perhaps similar NT passages.

    From my post:

    2 Peter 3

    ‘In context therefore, Second Peter Chapter 3:9 is not directed to non-believers in regard to salvation but is directed to Christians in regard to repentance. It is stating basically that the Lord is patient with you (Christians), not wishing for any of you to (perish/die) in a state of non-repentance.’

    I will admit I have not looked at Timothy, so thanks, Gerry...

    Looking at 1 Tim. 2: 4 the NASB states:

    1 Timothy 2:3-4
    New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the [a]knowledge of the truth.

    Footnotes:
    1 Timothy 2:4 Or recognition
    Checking my Alfred Marshall Greek-Interlinear it translates ‘all men wishes to be saved’.

    My Greek New Testament from Canadian Bible Society appears to share essentially the same Greek.

    My deduction would be from a Reformed bias, which could very well be a Biblical interpretation, Erickson’s view could work here. As well ‘all men’ is a little different perhaps than ‘everyone’. Everyone fitting a free will view better. I am deducing there may very well be a Reformed response stating ‘all men’ means all men as in all people groups, not every individual.

    Looking, yes sure enough, Uncle Gerry...

    Reformed Theology.com

    Quote:

    ‘I believe 1 Tim 2:4 is speaking of all in this sense of "all types."’

    Reformed Theology.com

    Cheers:)

    Russ

    ReplyDelete
  7. Clarification:

    With will1. I hold not dogmatically to a notion similar to Gen. 6 'God was sorry'.

    God can see two sides of something, and can see two good sides of something (two bad sides), as it was as he created humanity and then had reservations, yes using anthropomorphical language in regard to creating human beings. But I still reason the principle stands.

    It would be good if he caused all persons to be saved. More persons to worship him, more love, more fellowship, etc..

    It would be good if he did not cause all persons to be saved. These persons although in my view could be soft-determined not to sin in the everlasting Kingdom and to love God and others; but no matter whatever he caused not using force or coercion for the sake of significant limited free will/freedom, persons would not be acceptable to him.

    This ties into my PhD thesis core concept mentioned often of the type of persons God wished to develop via the problem of evil, and gospel work of atonement, resurrection, second advent, culminated Kingdom.

    It may very well be will1 is also that more so not all are saved. I noted Erickson's view, not as my view but as a philosophical possibility and hypothetical. That has always been the case...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thinking further on that day in John's office he stated something which made and makes sense to me. God sees something in individuals unacceptable for salvation/his Kingdom.

    Yes, similar to my PhD concept years later.

    If only force or coercion would work to change this then significant freedom would be negated.

    But I doubt force or coercion would need to be used, but John's view ties into my concept that God can see two sides of the issue.

    I reason, I lean toward, although Erickson's view is reasonable as a thought of God, God's more strong view as being, as God is infinite in knowledge, will1 being the same as will2 in regard to salvation. But it is complicated, as for example is this always the case with will1 and will2. I do not reason so. When God states for persons not to sin, that is will1 and will2 is permitted sin. God wills the sin will2 to develop sinful regenerates or not develop sinful non-regenerates.

    I reason this business requires a non-dogmatic view acknowledging degrees of will.

    Will1 God the Son dies for sin.

    Will2 God the Son dies for sin.

    Will1 Do not sin, people (Genesis 2-3, Exodus 20).

    Will2 People sin.

    Seems to me the wills can sometimes reasonably match and sometimes not within God's sovereign plans.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Have enough knowledge of vid and com to know with snr partner checkpoints not crossed. I figure with breaks 1.5 hrs work in 6.5 hrs. I have taken 30 mins break. Mind u i got lost for a few minutes in the corp. garage....

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yahoo!
    Hi Russ,

    We noticed a login to your Yahoo account (rnmwales) from an unrecognized device on Fri, 17 Jan, 2014 1:03 AM CST from United States.

    Was this you? If so, please disregard the rest of this email.

    ReplyDelete

  11. Tɦis ρost աοll help the internet users for setyting up new web
    site or even a weƄloog fromm staгt tto end.

    Review mmy webpage; basic kali kali fіlipino martial arts techniques
    weapoոs ()

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Most Powerful Selling Trigger…

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hі thеre, after reading this remarkable ρiece of wrіtіng i amm aas well happy to share myy knoԝ-hοw heе with frieոds.

    ReplyDelete
  14. always i usеd tߋ read ѕmaller posts tҺat aalso cleаr tɦeir
    motive, aոd tҺat iѕ аlso happening wit this paragraph ѡhich I am readig
    аt this ρlace.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's here the soon -"666" cool way to pay !

    ReplyDelete
  16. With the 666 issue there is the preterist, futurist debate.

    If 666 is reasoned to be more than
    a reference to ancient Rome and the emperor/leadership, it is no easy task to properly know how it shall be implemented.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A view of atonement gaining support with many evangelicals who are troubled by aspects of substitutionary atonement, is "Christus Victor".
    Christianity Today published this interesting critique.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Quote:


    'Unfortunately, this article is not a great introduction to this debate. Anyone who wants a deeper understanding of this issue should read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor and then compare it with J.I. Packer's online talk, The Logic of Penal Substitution. There are important differences, but not ones that should divide the Church.'

    Looked at Aulen for MTS/MPhil degrees. Reasonable (Mark 10) as ransom is an aspect of atonement which has many. I focus on, from Scripture, mainly the covering aspect (Romans-Hebrews).

    Thanks, Chucky

    ReplyDelete
  19. i think i've seen you here before

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey I know this is off topic but I was wondering if you knew of any widgets I could add to my blog that automatically tweet my newest twitter updates. I've been looking for a plug-in like this for quite some time and was hoping maybe you would have some experience with something like this. Please let me know if you run into anything. I truly enjoy reading your blog and I look forward to your new updates.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Your eLibrary membership renewal has failed

    ReplyDelete
  22. And you ethically fail with continuing the con.

    I never paid for the library even when taking the course, Jakk.

    They tried to charge me for it on one hand, while stating I could use it for free, on the other.

    ReplyDelete
  23. By default, online gambling is illegal, which means operating online casinos is also part of the illegal activity.
    • Players are throughout surrounded by other individuals
    in a conventional game. You can either play for fun, or play for real money.
    My name is Mason (22 years old) and my hobbies are Seashell Collecting and Baton twirling.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm extremely impressed together with your writing skills as well as with the layout
    for your blog. Is this a paid subject or did you customize it your
    self? Either way stay up the excellent high quality writing, it's uncommon to look a nice weblog like
    this one today..

    Feel free to visit my site; gold investing

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey there,
    Here's an invitation to once in a life time
    training webinar from the Click Click Profits
    Team.

    There aren't many spots left, and it's free
    to attend, so be sure to grab a spot while
    you can:

    =>>> Grab your spot right NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  26. You know what? I would rather invest with gold than internet marketing...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Academically, it seems difficult, perhaps not reasonable to academically and technically, definitively, historically separate the terms 'Reformed' from 'Calvinist' and Reformed Tradition from Calvinism.

    Yeah, I thought that Reformed and Calvinist were generally the same thing.

    ...Calvinists, while in basic agreement on theological issues have differences based on historical understanding and geography.

    So many people irritatingly tend to clump all Calvinists into one batch and treat them all the same, usually assuming that every Calvinist is a five-point Calvinist.

    For example, many people (that I have come across) assume that all Calvinists see no reason for evangelism.

    They also see Election from the negative side, as God choosing some people to burn in Hell. I see it from the opposite side, as God choosing some for eternal life, and rescuing a remnant (in the Bible, God has always chosen a remnant), leaving others to their own free choice, and man's free choice, unaffected by the Holy Spirit, being corrupted and fallen and sinful, always chooses to rebel against God, and never wants to be under the authority and accountability of a superior Being, and does not want to be held accountable for his/her thoughts, words and deeds.

    ReplyDelete
  28. For example, some deterministic Presbyterians deny any human free will whatsoever and yet claim persons 'freely' believe when regenerated.

    Though I am mainly familiar with Baptist, Lutheran, Charismatic and Christian & Missionary Alliance churches, I have been to a few Presbyterian churches, and I have never heard any of them deny free will; maybe they have just not talked about it, or maybe the Presbyterian churches here in the U.S. are somewhat different from the Presbyterian churches in Canada and elsewhere---I really don't know.

    Although I certainly agree God must initiate regeneration and it is irresistible grace in a sense, I do not see God using force and coercion in the process.

    I see it as "transforming" rather than 'forcing them against their will,' in a way that changes their will and desire to want to choose Him; and I don't see coercion, as in forcing by threats, pressure or force, but I do see God drawing them in an irresistable manner.

    ...as today many Protestant churches are apostate and quite liberal.

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I also for social and geographical reason, am no longer attending a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) church, but am back with the Mennonite Brethren Church (MB) where I was baptized and attended by undergrad Biblical Studies degree.

    Interesting. I don't know that much about Mennonites. I see them as similar to the Amish, though I'm sure there are many differences. I did visit a Christian camp of Mennonites, and I know there are some strict beliefs.

    Oh, and just as an unrelated side thought, I know you have mentioned skimming over things before, to get an overview. We have shorter attention spans than we think.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Good and reasonable, Jeff.

    Just putting final touches on a new post on here in regard to a television documentary on Berlin, the Soviet Union and mass rape.

    Thanks my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Funny, I do not find that page very readable.

    Ironic...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Funny, I do not find that page very readable.

    Ironic...


    I agree. Maybe they're purposely trying to prove their own point by designing the page so that people will only want to skim it and not read it in its entirety.

    BTW, love the train track photo. I'm doubting that it looks that good in real life.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes, compare my Android II photos which just do not capture the full essence.

    The top professional photos, with top-notch cameras, software and photographers, capture the essence and then at times seem to exaggerate colours and contrast.

    Only on brilliant Summer days, maybe Spring, rare here, have I seen in person images that match those photos.

    I have seen some in Europe.

    Cheers, my friend

    ReplyDelete
  34. 'have been to a few Presbyterian churches, and I have never heard any of them deny free will;'

    According to online interaction and a discussion with PCA leadership, there are in North America some Presbyterians that lean toward or hold to hard determinism.

    Thanks, Jeff

    ReplyDelete