Do Calvinist use “Philosophy” or Not?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Benjamin, Dec 21, 2011.

?

Is the Calvinist’ system built on philosophical principles?

  1. Calvinism uses a philosophical system to interpret scripture.

    70.0%
  2. Calvinism has nothing to do with philosophy; it is built strictly on scriptural language.

    30.0%
  3. Calvinism is inflexible because it comes from the enlightened understandings of church fathers.

    10.0%
  4. Most Non-Calvinist use philosophy, but true Calvinists should have no part of that concept.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Calvinism was God given to the Saints as expressed in the “confession” w/out philosophical input.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. To use philosophy is to heretically import ideas into the historic faith.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    112
    Is the Calvinist’ system built on philosophical principles or something else? If something else, what?
     
  2. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe none of your options state the matter accurately.

    #1 is the closest, but I would say it this way:

    "Calvinism, like every other system of Christian belief, uses philosophy in its attempt to rightly interpret scripture to arrive at what it believes to be an accurate understanding of what the whole of scriptures teach."

    It is a bit misleading to say Calvinism "uses philosophy to interpret scripture." ...not because the statement isn't true, but because it isn't complete. It makes is sound as though calvinism seeks only to fit scripture verses into its already established philosophy. However, Calvinism ALSO seeks to have its "philosophy" shaped by scripture (as does Arminianism). Of course Both sides would argue that the other side does NOT do this, but instead tries to force-fit scriptures into thier pre-determined beleifs.
     
  3. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know a non-reformed theologian who once said, "Calvinists have better Biblical arguments, non-reformed have better philosophical arguments." I have never asked him to quote him, but I agreed.
     
  4. marke

    marke
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Calvinism is Biblical interpretation which falls short of full revelation from scriptures. Because it is based upon scriptures and because it does have a believable solution to difficult passages, many Christians without widespread understanding of the whole of the Bible have been persuaded that Calvinism is an accurate view of what the scripture teaches. Once the doctrinal view takes root in the new Calvinist convert, it begins to grow in strength with help from Calvinist teachers in arguing against those who question the position on the basis of the scriptures which refute Calvinism.

    It is unfortunate that so many Christians end up wrong about so many different kinds of doctrine, but it is a good thing that the various supporters promote their views in open debate so those who are seeking wisdom from God may see the various opinions for themselves and the Lord can show the seeker what is truth among the error.
     
  5. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    So...Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Owen, Watson, Bunyan, Whitfield, Spurgeon, LLoyd-Jones, MacArthur... You're saying their REAL problem was that they just didn't have a "widespread understanding of the whole Bible"? Something their Arminian counterparts did happen to have?
     
  6. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    112
    I’m glad to hear that. BTW, the pole is limited to 100 characters so it is not possible to go into that much detail. The point is that philosophy is part of that interpretation.


    I based last 5 options off what Iconoclast was expressing to me about “phikosophy” on another tread and welcome him to check away (It is multiple choice :thumbs:) otherwise, I would love to hear what he (or any other Calvinist) disagrees with the way I presented "any" of those options.
     
    #6 Benjamin, Dec 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 21, 2011
  7. marke

    marke
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess if I fall on the wrong side of the fence with them when I disagree with some Calvinistic views, then yes, that is exactly what I am saying about them. I also have disagreements with Arminian ideas as well, so I guess I really just don't fit in anywhere. I will nevertheless hold true to what I believe the Bible says until shown otherwise, even If nobody agrees with me.
     
  8. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's your prerogative, I just don't know if it's accurate to say that those men who DO agree with large portions of calvinism simply need more bible study to "widen" their understanding of scripture.
     
  9. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Benjamin, I find you "begging the question" with your survey questions. There is only one conclusion that someone answering your questions can take -- philosophy is bad.

    We ALL use philosophy, which is the "seeking of wisdom" -- something the very Scriptures tell us to do. But what canot happen is the elevation of a philosophical argument ABOVE the distinct and specific revelation of God in the Text.
     
  10. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you realize that you have offered a "philosophical" answer and not a Scriptural exegesis to this issue? :laugh:
     
  11. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    You would need to give your definition of "philosophy" before I can answer that. I have just looked up the word in a dictionary (a secular one), and it gave me the following meanings:
    1. Examination of basic concepts
    2. School of thought
    3. Guiding or underlying principles
    4. Set of beliefs or aims
    5. Calm resignation
    Most, if not all, of those meanings should apply to all Christians.
     
  12. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Talk about begging the question in the OP. Then the poll? Uh, no point in even saying anything about that as it's clear what the problem is there! LOL!!!! :laugh:

    I've already affirmed the fact that non-cals philosiphize, and which points they use in their philosphized sytem in their assailment upon objections to Biblical points.
     
  13. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Basically what he means is 1) Calvinist theology is not Biblically based, but is "opinion", or, "philosophy" based only on "their reason." 2) That non-cals theology is Biblical only, not derived from their "philosophy" or reason.

    Something similar to this.
     
  14. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find that an interesting statement and one I agree with, but I would apply the same statement towards those who hold to Arminianism. As to myself I hold to both loosely.
    In regards to the OP question on philosophy being used to arrive at our understanding I think it should be true to all seekers of truth as long as the term means truth seeker and not preconceived ideas or bents.
     
  15. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0

    And all YOU do is make pronouncements.
     
  16. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    If someone uses "phinkosophy", does that make them a "ratfink".......[​IMG]
     
  17. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    have to decide which side to fall on though!

    Really simple test to see which way that you lean towards!

    basis of our salvation...

    Will of God, that He determined to save us ....

    Will of man, that we personally responded in faith to Christ.....
     
  18. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    I know that this wasn't directed to me, but the answer is both.
     
  19. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think was saying that the conclusions that we come to is based by intrepreting the Bible through our prepositions, and not the actual meaning of the texts themselves!

    They would be saying that the system appears logical , but ONLY due to us squeezing the Bible into our own meanings!
     
  20. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are not understanding what I stated. When I say both I do not mean parts of both and one more then the other. I mean both equally. I realize that is a difficult thing for most, but for me it is very easy as I see both taught in scripture. It is no different then me holding that Jesus is God and man. I do not lean to one side more then the other. I see Him as a man, and I see Him as God neither more dominate then the other.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...