Post Calendar
-
Podcast Feeds
Nov
15
A Response to an Orthodox Concerning Calvinism and Romans 9
November 15, 2007 |
Posted by michaelp · Filed Under Eastern Orthodoxy, Evangelicalism, Calvinism/Arminianism, Christian Traditions, Church History
I received this from an Orthodox gentleman:
If Romans 9 teaches Calvinism so clearly, why didn’t the Greeks, who spoke in the koine dialect for more than a thousand years after Christ (and who still speak modern Greek) understand Paul in this way? The prophets of the Old Testament, and even the Roman Jews to whom Paul was writing his epistle, did not use different vocabulary to distinguish between God’s permissive will and His perfect will. This is clear from Scripture, as when one book mentions that an Israelite census was inspired by God, while the other mentions it was inspired by the devil.
Calvinism presents the One who “so loved the world” as someone different entirely. One who loves everyone and “wills their salvation” but nevertheless only chooses some to unconditionally receive salvation and others are left to the fire. Could one say of someone who has enough antidote to a poison that everyone has taken yet only gives to a few, that he “loves” everyone? Only if one does not understand love.
I responded:
My Orthodox friend, you seem to fail to recognized the assumptions behind your post that, while they may be true, do beg the question of your historical argument.
Your assumption is this: All those who lived in the early church, by virtue of being closer to the Apostles and the original language can understand these issues better than we can today.
However, most Protestants do not accept this assumption outright. While Protestants would seek to find the essence of our faith (the seed) in the early Church, we believe in what is called semper reformanda. Semper reformanda means “always reforming.” This does not simply mean that the church is always reforming in practice, but in our understanding of truth. Therefore, in some cases, we can have a better understanding of doctrine than the early church (e.g. theory of the atonement, instrumental cause of justification, articulation of the Trinity at 325, understanding of man’s sinfulness, etc). Therefore, while we have great respect for the Church Fathers, we believe that doctrine itself can develop like a seed develops into a tree. The essence is there, but there is even more (leaves, fruit, bark, etc.)
Hopefully, at least in your case, you will see why this type of argument is not ultimately persuasive. There is a respect and accountability to those who have gone before us, but not an ultimate reliance. We stand on their shoulder and push forward.
This is why with regards to the issue of unconditional election, we can find seeds of it yet not full articulations until the time of Calvin. This does not make it true or untrue. The Scripture is our final authority as we ask advice of those who have gone before us.
Comments
4 Comments so far
-
-
Theologica
Check it out here.
-
Parchment and Pen Blog- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Internet Monk
- Faith and Theology
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
-
Warning: Attempt to assign property of non-object in /home/ttpstude/public_html/blogs/wp-includes/rss.php on line 428
Warning: Attempt to assign property of non-object in /home/ttpstude/public_html/blogs/wp-includes/rss.php on line 428
Powered by FireStats
You wrote “we believe in what is called semper reformanda. Semper reformanda means “always reforming.” However, Calvinist seem to apply this to everyone other than themselves. If this is true then 500 years post the Reformation Calvinist should have had major changes in their theology - but yet we see they refuse to make even one iota change in their doctrine - just try this with someone like Piper and you’ll pull back a nub!
First, we see this definition of revelation no where in Scripture, that is understanding of the Truth is constantly changing or “reforming” - Truth is absolute. Do you disagree?? If so your a relativist!
Per your argument your literally saying that someone like Calvin had a better understanding of the Scriptures than the Apostles??!! Take for example Polycarp - was taught by John who sat at the feet of Jesus. You mean to tell me that Calvin or Luther had a greater “reformed” understanding of scripture than Polycarp or Clement of Alexandria??? This is such a weak argument and is nonsensical
Preston, I agree that all traditions have those that begin to cement themselves in their particular nuance of understanding and therefore fail to follow the principle of semper reformanda. Jim Sawyer calls this “The Hardening of the Categories.” Yet it is always best to use the best examples of those who aspire toward the nobility of this principle. There will always be thousands (Calvinists or others) who do not follow the dictates of that to which they aspire.
Truth never changes, but our understanding of truth does. Therefore it is not the truth itself that is undergoing evolution, but our understanding as doctrine develops.
That ideal of semper reformanda means more ‘always returning’ or reforming to the beginning than some kind of ‘always changing’ that the phrase is often accused of meaning.
And really, there is no necessary rule that the direct disciples of the Apostles had a better understanding of the Scriptures than we do since almost every New Testament work consists of lucid argumentation with the direct students of Apostles to correct their errant theology.
The early Church was by the Apostolic witness itself awash in error both moral and doctrinal. Add to that the fact that almost every major heretical position was born and flourished in the first few centuries of Christianity and the reasonable person with a sincere faith learns to be wary of antiquity. Nothing is good because it is old.
The doctrines of the early Church are as open to Scriptural justification as any other, and those things that stand the test of Scripture, shall be held, anything else, rejected. If there are better understandings today of the nuances of what Scripture teaches than the Early Church had the ability to sift out, then as long as the Apostles taught it, we are bound by a Christian duty to hold it as true.
These things, with more clarity than was taught by the Early Church includes Sola Scriptura and Justification by Faith Alone.
Neiswonger
Semper Reformanda does imply that clarifying, correcting, and modifying the Early Church’s most basic, unanimous and historic beliefs concerning conditional atonement and free-will of man, is necessary and ought be replaced with doctrines that deem these most central historical understandings to date as a “false gospel” aka “in need of reform.”
According to Calvinism, people who agree with the early church view concerning atonement are labeled as “Arminians” and considered unregenerate - until perhaps the date they reject this belief and submit and trust in the Reformed “true gospel”.
Concerning “Calvinism is the Gospel” - It is quite something to claim honoring a tradition and argue for reform and wind up with new “reformed” truths that turn key central original beliefs completely upside down and opposite to the original premise/heart of that tradition and its premise.