The Flexibility of a Christian Worldview

I'm reading The Unintended Reformation with the Monday reading group and will probably post about it regularly for the next month or so.  I came across a good point today that I wanted to emphasize:

"Because the central claims of Christianity were not based or dependent on any philosophy but rather on God's putative actions in history, inherited assumptions and practices provided a framework for the testing, debate, and discriminating assimilation of philosophical ideas compatible with the faith" (39-40).

Brad Gregory is talking about the late Middle Ages here and about how Christian thinkers could appropriate elements from Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, even Epicureanism without also adopting their clearly non-Christian elements.  It is also true that "inherited assumptions and practices" at that time would have included a good deal of Roman Catholic ritual and tradition.  One of the reasons the Anglican church can house such a diversity of belief (from charismatic to evangelical to Anglo-Catholic to Sea of Faith non-literalists) is because they all share the liturgy in common.

All of that is introduction. What I want to jump on is the "because" part.  The central claims of Christianity are based in God's actions in history, not on a philosophical system.  This fact has historically made it possible--and I believe continues to make it possible--for there to be some flexibility in the philosophical framework within which Christian faith is housed.

Are there some basics to a Christian worldview?  Yes, I believe there are.  For example, a Christian worldview believes in a God that literally exists, created the world, and acts in the world.  But the basics are event-focused and a relatively short list.

What this means is that those who talk extensively in terms of biblical or Christian worldview are really doing what Augustine did with Platonism or Thomas did with Aristotelianism or Luther or Calvin or Van Til have done.  They are not presenting the biblical or Christian worldview but presenting a Christian worldview that places the core events into some philosophical framework that is not actually part of the core.

Again, Paul the Arminian...

Romans 8:13, addressed to Roman believers:

"If you are living according to flesh, you are about to die."

I guess this "works righteousness" aspect of Judaism that Luther and Calvin decried--and that Arminians are now criticized for--turns out be what Paul himself taught.  Oops.

So let's keep a list: Paul the Jew, Paul the Arminian, Paul the nominalist...

Happy Birthday Calvin!

Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday, Dear Johnnie,
Happy birthday to you.

I'm a little late in the day, but three cheers for Calvin! He was one smart cookie.

Calvin Goof of the Day 3-26-09

In Romans 7, "he is discussing the Christian struggle (more briefly touched in Galatians [ch. 5:17]), which believers constantly feel in themselves in the conflict between flesh and spirit. But the Spirit comes, not from nature, but from regeneration. Moreover, it is clear that the apostle is speaking of these regenerated, because when he had said that no good dwelt in him, he adds the explanation that he is referring to his flesh [Rom. 7:18].

"Accordingly, he declares that it is not he who does evil, but sin dwelling in him. [Rom. 7:20.] What does he mean by this correction: "In me, that is, in my flesh" [Rom. 7:18]? It is as if he were speaking in this way: "Good does not dwell in me of myself, for nothing good is to be found in my flesh." Hence follows that form of an excuse: "I myself do not do evil, but sin that dwells in me" [Rom. 7:20]. This excuse applies only to the regenerate who tend toward good with the chief part of their soul.

"Now the conclusion appended clearly explains this whole matter: "For I delight in the law . . . according to the inner man, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind" [Rom. 7:22-23]. Who would have such strife in himself but a man who, regenerated by the Spirit of God, bears the remains of his flesh about with him?"

Oops. I guess Calvin isn't inspired. No wonder so many fundamentalist Calvinists are up in arms about the "new" perspective. It's hard to kick against the pricks.

Calvin Quote for Day 3-26-09

Man, I'm way behind on Calvin reading...

"... the greatest geniuses are blinder than moles! Certainly I do not deny that one can read competent and apt statements about God here and there in the philosophers, but these always show a certain giddy imagination."

Calvin making no sense...

Calvin: nothing at all in the world is undertaken without his determination...

Calvin: I grant more: thieves and murderers and other evildoers are the instruments of divine providence, and the Lord himself uses these to carry out the judgments that he has determined with himself. Yet I deny that they can derive from this any excuse for their evil deeds. Why? Will they either involve God in the same iniquity with themselves, or will they cloak their own depravity with his justice? They can do neither. In their own conscience they are so convicted as to be unable to clear themselves; in themselves they so discover all evil, but in him only the lawful use of their evil intent, as to preclude laying the charge against God. Well and good, for he works through them. And whence, I ask you, comes the stench of a corpse, which is both putrefied and laid open by the heat of the sun? All men see that it is stirred up by the sun's rays; yet no one for this reason says that the rays stink." Thus, since the matter and guilt of evil repose in a wicked man, what reason is there to think that God contracts any defilement, if he uses his service for his own purpose? Away, therefore, with this doglike impudence, which can indeed bark at God's justice afar off but cannot touch it.

Calvin: all things happen by God's plan, and that nothing takes place by chance...

Schenck: My problem with Calvin's thinking here is not the middle paragraph by itself. It seems coherent to me to suggest that God can use the evil intents and actions of others to bring about good purposes. My problem is that, prior to this paragraph, he has been hammering the fact that God directs everything. Unless I have misunderstood him, the implication seems to be that Calvin not only sees God using the evil intents and actions of others, but that God has caused the evil intents and actions themselves. That would be the point where I don't think he makes sense.

The more I read Calvin, the more my expectations are confirmed. First, he was an incredible thinker in his day, an amazing one. I am especially impressed by his ability to throw around classical and patristic quotations.

Second, his hermeneutic is dated. I am nowhere near his capacity, but standing at the beginning of the twenty-first century on the shoulders of so many who have come in between, his ability to read the Bible in context looks very thin at times.

This is not a blight on Calvin, but it does make the kind of people who went after Enns look pretty stupid. They are intellectual Amish, mistaking the sixteenth century for absolute truth.

Calvin on Joel Green :-)

After Nijay Gupta reviewed Joel Green's new book, Body, Soul, and Human Life, I thought it was funny that I read this line in Calvin's Institutes today:

"that man consists of a soul and a body ought to be beyond controversy."

:-)

I guess Nijay will be interviewing Joel Green tomorrow so you might want to check it out. I may link it...

Calvin: Possible for Adam not to Sin?

By coincidence or Providence, the reading in Calvin's Institutes below came up yesterday as I am editing a chapter on the problem of evil. In the section I am editing, I am pointing out the difference between the hyper-Calvinism of, say, John Piper, and that of John Calvin himself, as represented below. P.S., the Nietzsche quote I had in mind was from the preface of A Genealogy of Morals.
___________
God provided man's soul with a mind, by which to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong; and, with the light of reason as guide, to distinguish what should be followed from what should be avoided. For this reason, the philosophers called this directing part. To this he joined the will, under whose control is choice. Man in his first condition excelled in these pre-eminent endowments, so that his reason, understanding, prudence, and judgment not only sufficed for the direction of his earthly life, but by them men mounted up even to God and eternal bliss. Then was choice added, to direct the appetites and control all the organic motions, and thus make the will completely amenable to the guidance of the reason.

In this integrity man by free will had the power, if he so willed, to attain eternal life. Here it would be out of place to raise the question of God's secret predestination because our present subject is not what can happen or not, but what man's nature was like. Therefore Adam could have stood if he wished, seeing that he fell solely by his own will. But it was because his will was capable of being bent to one side or the other, and was not given the constancy to persevere, that he fell so easily. Yet his choice of good and evil was free, and not that alone, but the highest rectitude was in his mind and will, and all the organic parts were rightly composed to obedience, until in destroying himself he corrupted his own blessings.
________
By the way, I don't have it here at home to quote, but our IWU reading group started The Dumb Ox today by G. K. Chesterton, a brief sketch of Thomas Aquinas. Both of their catholicism I find so much more "Wesleyan" than Calvin, just more optimistic and hopeful.

Q & A with Peter Enns 2

Question 2: How would you respond to those who don’t think you’re a very good Calvinist?

It would all depend on the person’s intention. If the question came from a defensive or argumentative posture, I’ve seen enough to know that this will bear little fruit. Arguments about who is the better Calvinist tend to generate laser-like heat but precious little light.

If, however, the question is asked with a genuine interest in engaging me on how I see these things—with the understanding that both parties should be open to growth—then I am very interested in the conversation.

Just what it means to be Reformed has been a debated issue and the struggle continues to see who will win the right to define it. There are those who think of the Reformed faith—better, a particular articulation of the Reformed faith (19th century Princeton, for example)—as the only true expression not only of the Reformed faith but also of Christianity. Indeed, as some I know have put it, the Reformed faith (narrowly defined) is understood as “Christianity come into its own,” and that the Reformed “hold the truth in trust” for other traditions.

This is tragic, and if this is what it means to be Reformed, then I am not Reformed. If, however, one understands the Reformed faith as a particularly insightful and deep tradition that hits upon numerous biblical and theological issues with clarity and gospel-fidelity—even to the extent that other traditions will be richer for the interaction—BUT that is also, by virtue of its location in particular historical/cultural circumstances, as prone to sin and error as anything else under the sun, and is therefore in need of regular critical evaluation, then, yes, I am Reformed. The Reformed faith is for me, in other words, a means to Christian truth rather than the sum total of Christian truth.

The problem is that these two models of what it means to be Reformed are, for all practical purposes, incompatible, because parties on both sides hold tenaciously to their model. Still, I hope it is not too self-serving to point out that the latter model can incorporate a humble expression of the former and even benefit from it, but the former in principle does not seem poised to reciprocate. It cannot.

So, how would I respond? I would say I am a good Calvinist of the second sort. If the rejoinder is “Well, then you are no Calvinist” (speaking purely hypothetically of course J), I would likely nod, thank them for their time, and go on with my life.

It is an interesting conundrum. In my opinion, the Reformed faith is one of the richest Christian intellectual traditions (along with Roman Catholicism). I do not mean to take away from other Christian traditions, from which I have learned and continue to learn much, but the Reformed intellectual heritage has a rather impressive pedigree of working out theology with great precision. But, along with that, there is always the temptation to fixate on that past in unhealthy ways.

What is lost is the other side of the Reformed equation, that of rethinking and recasting past articulations according to Scripture. There is a tension—a healthy one, I think—between “always Reformed and reforming.” Of course, the question is always one of going ”too far” in either direction. A “good Calvinist” on my opinion is one who maintains that tension and works with charity and harmony with others in working toward that goal of employing the Reformed faith for the good of the gospel.

What is also very interesting to me, and directly related to this thought, is just how Scripture actually functions as being authoritative over the Reformed tradition. In Reformed theology, Scripture is the confessed standard by which all human articulations are judged, including the Reformed faith. “Exegesis is the lifeblood of theology” as some have put it.

The contemporary question, however, is “what exactly is exegesis?” which is to ask, to what extent does exegesis necessarily include interaction with new paradigms and information coming from the modern study of Scripture, and can in principle that type of exegesis rightly challenge pre-modern confessions (with all due respect to those confessions and in a conversational rather than adversarial tone)?

Simply put, one exegetes and therefore understands Genesis 1, for example, differently depending on whether he/she is seeing it in terms of ancient categories (i.e., historical setting) or in a more traditional manner (as part of an innerbiblical exercise of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture). I actually do not think the two approaches are mutually exclusive, for understanding a text’s background will, hopefully, bring greater depth to the text’s theology, and therefore yield a deeper innerbiblical (I would say, redemptive-historical, “Christotelic”) interaction. The problem, however, is that “Bible in context,” as is well known, can very quickly run up against transitional articulations of doctrine that were formulated before such matters of historical context were either known or appreciated.

I have clarified some of my own thoughts on this on my own webpage, if, for some reason, anyone would be interested. (“Some Reflections on I&I and the Reformed Tradition”) It is a bit of an in-house matter, but some might find it interesting or even applicable to analogous situations.

Calvin Quote for the Day 2-11-08

"If, therefore, these terms [theological terms in relation to the Trinity] were not rashly invented, we ought to beware lest by repudiating them we be accused of overweening rashness. Indeed, I could wish they were buried, if only among all men this faith were agreed on: that Father and Son and Spirit are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are differentiated by a peculiar quality."

I might say as I look at Calvin's use of Scripture, I think I can understand why some of the more "fundamentalist" Calvinists have difficulty with people like Peter Enns. One of the sections of the Institutes I read today has Calvin looking for Christ in the Old Testament, and he consistently shows that he is unable to read the Old Testament inductively, to let it speak in context. Certainly he would have had little of our sense of the Ancient Near Eastern cultural context.

I was excited to get a copy of Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament today. I don't know when I'll be able to fit it in here, but I am looking forward to it greatly.

A good Calvin quote (can it be?)

"The Anthropomorphites, also, who imagined a corporeal God from the fact that Scripture often ascribes to him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are easily refuted. For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to 'lisp' in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness."

Calvin excerpt and a spiraling stream of thoughts

I'm behind on Calvin, but read this today:

"Here we must more carefully attend to those subtleties with which superstition disports itself. Indeed, it does not so decline to other gods as seemingly to desert the highest God, or to reduce him to the level of the rest. But while it concedes to him the supreme place, it surrounds him with a throng of lesser gods, among whom it parcels out his functions. The glory of his divinity is so rent asunder (although stealthily and craftily) that his whole glory does not remain with him alone. Thus, in the past, men, Jews as well as heathen, put a vast throng of gods under the father and ruler of the gods. Each of these gods according to his rank held in common with the highest god the government of heaven and earth."

"the distinction between latria and dulia, as they called them, was invented in order that divine honors might seem to be transferred with impunity to angels and the dead. For it is obvious that the honor the papists give to the saints really does not differ from the honoring of God."

P.S. The distinction between latria and dulia has to do with the Catholic distinction between the worship appropriate to God alone and the kind of lower reverence appropriate saints and such.

This discussion really reminded me of Bauckham and the sharp divide he places between God and other heavenly beings. The religious traditions of scholars do affect their biblical interpretation. So I wondered if Bauckham was much of an Anglican and if this section of the Institutes has had any significant impact on him.

I know he did use to teach theology and now that he's emeritus at St. Andrews he's at Ridley at Cambridge, an Anglican theological training college.

That of course made me think of how Calvinist the 39 articles are and the strange fact that the Westminster Confession is Anglican, that John Knox took it back to Scotland where it became ground zero for Presbyterianism.

Then I thought of N. T. Wright's strange view of faith as a "badge of covenant membership," not as what gets you in or justifies you. Sure seems Calvinist to me--faith does not get you in but is a sign that you're in.

So then there's a discussion I had with Bounds yesterday I think. Apparently Anglicanism was heavily Calvinist at the beginning until some Arminian influence came in the mid-1600's. Wesley came at the right time for this trend to influence him. Unfortunately, that trajectory apparently went heavily Deist, to where those Anglicans who take doctrine seriously today tend to be the Calvinist trajectory.

I'm sure I'm perverting the Bound discussion... I take responsibility. Is this right?

There, now free to carry the spiraling stream of consciousness where you will...

Excerpt from Calvin's Institutes

"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men! For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? Who can assure us that Scripture has come down whole and intact even to our very day? Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters?

"What reverence is due Scripture and what books ought to be reckoned within its canon depend, they say, upon the determination of the church. Thus these sacrilegious men, wishing to impose an unbridled tyranny under the cover of the church, do not care with what absurdities they ensnare themselves and others, provided they can force this one idea upon the simple-minded: that the church has authority in all things.

"Yet, if this is so, what will happen to miserable consciences seeking firm assurance of eternal life if all promises of it consist in and depend solely upon the judgment of men? Will they cease to vacillate and tremble when they receive such an answer? Again, to what mockeries of the impious is our faith subjected, into what suspicion has it fallen among all men, if we believe that it has a precarious authority dependent solely upon the good pleasure of men!"
________
This is a great debate. I would shift the nature of the debate thusly:

1. Calvin is right to question whether the political church has greater authority than the Bible. When I speak of the authority of the church, I mean the church universal and timeless, the communion of the saints, the church of the ages, the "invisible" church, the church possessed of and directed by the Holy Spirit.

2. Calvin of course is not fully aware of the flexibility of language or the distinction between his understanding of the Bible and the original meaning of the Bible. To that extent, he does not realize the impact the church has already had on his understanding of Scripture.

Calvin Quote for the Day

"... it appears that if men were taught only by nature, they would hold to nothing certain or solid or clear-cut, but would be so tied to confused principles as to worship an unknown god."

In this Calvin anticipates Barth. I think there is significant merit to this quote.