Question for Calvinists

[DialecticSkeptic]

An orthodox alternative would be one couched in scripture, not post-scriptural man-made doctrine(s).

Then I would point to a monist anthropology, which emphasizes a holistic understanding of human beings, arguing for the inseparability of the body and soul—man does not have a soul, man is a soul. The notion of an immaterial, immortal soul is "fundamentally unbiblical. Biblical anthropology is not dualistic but monistic: human being consists in the integrated wholeness of body and soul, and the Bible never contemplates the disembodied existence of the soul in bliss" (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, s.v. "soul"; cf. Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology).

There are basically three forms: (1) non-reductive physicalism, (2) emergent monism, and (3) constitutional monism. I hold to the latter, being influenced by Lynne R. Baker, Persons and Bodies: A Constitution View (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000). This view holds that human persons are constituted by their bodies without being identical with the bodies that constitute them (which is why you're still you with an imperishable resurrection body). For the biblical basis, see G. C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1962).

For example, I've already posted the fact there are no bodiless souls in scripture. Another example would be 1 Corinthians 15, which tells us we will be raised imperishable or incorruptible and immortal. This implies we are not immortal prior to that transformation. Furthermore, Jesus said the one who can destroy both body and soul (Gk. = psychen) in hell should be feared. This necessarily and inescapably implies the soul is not immortal; it can be killed or destroyed. Regardless of what tradition or anything else says, what scripture says is the soul is not an immaterial soul and it is not immortal. Therefore, anyone—Calvin, Berkouwer, tradition, you, me, Ricky, Lucy, Bert or Ernie, it does not matter—who says otherwise is contradicting scripture... the orthodox alternative.

This just tells me that you agree with me regarding an error Calvin made.

But I am curious about what is next, if anything. Or maybe you just wanted to know that there are Calvinists who can point to errors Calvin made.

Berkouwer is great. However, I hope my request for a comparative alternative is now clear to all.

It is not clear to me. I cannot discern how this request corresponds with your opening post. Did Calvin hold erroneous views? Sure, and I provided an example. But what is the relevance of having an alternative view? After all, Calvin's view is erroneous whether I have an alternative lined up or not.

I'm not asking for one theologian's opinion over another's. That would do nothing more than create a competition between fallacious appeals to authorities.

That does not follow. A claim or argument is fallacious in this sense only if someone asserts that P is true because an authority or expert said it is, and without any substantive evidence to support the claim. More importantly, not all appeals to authority are fallacious. If I appeal to an authority who is an expert in a relevant field, accurately conveying their view with substantive evidence in a correct context (e.g., within the context and scope of their research and findings), then that is not fallacious.

 

[Josheb]

That does not follow. A claim or argument is fallacious in this sense only if someone asserts that P is true because an authority or expert said it is, and without any substantive evidence to support the claim. More importantly, not all appeals to authority are fallacious. If I appeal to an authority who is an expert in a relevant field, accurately conveying their view with substantive evidence in a correct context (e.g., within the context and scope of their research and findings), then that is not fallacious.

It does follow. Think it through.


If Calvin is pitted against (Calvinist) Berkouwer (or any other human) then all we have is two competing theologians and neither may be correct (especially since Berkouwer is Calvinist - that is just differences within a like paradigm). Some objective standard by which ALL theologians can be measured is required (like the Bible). Berkouwer is not an expert. Plenty of Dispensationalists and synergists theologians would laugh in your face at that implication and dismiss everything you'd post as ideology. The second problem is this is my op and I'll ignore any posts that don't follow stated the rules. So, if a conversation about the prospect of Calvin having mistakes in his theology with me in THIS op is desired then post within the stipulations provided. Otherwise, let me know you've got a different agenda, don't quote my posts, and have the conversation you want to have with others. I commended the very good and valid example provided but asked for an explanation how that is a mistake when measured by something other than a fallacious appeal to a competing authority. Scripture trumps Berkouwer every time. It's up to you whether you'll do that or not but do not expect me to collaborate with anyone not collaborating with the op.

Then I would point to a monist anthropology, which emphasizes a holistic understanding of human beings, arguing for the inseparability of the body and soul—man does not have a soul, man is a soul. The notion of an immaterial, immortal soul is "fundamentally unbiblical. Biblical anthropology is not dualistic but monistic: human being consists in the integrated wholeness of body and soul, and the Bible never contemplates the disembodied existence of the soul in bliss" (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, s.v. "soul"; cf. Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology).

Eerdman's is a great resource, but the Bible trumps Eerdman's, too.


Do you have a Bible? If so, then try proving Calvin's view of the soul using the one authority to which we here ALL subscribe.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It does follow. Think it through.

For the reader's sake, I shall try once more to explain this as clearly as possible.

Not all appeals to authority are fallacious. Sometimes, such appeals can be entirely legitimate, like when the cited authority (a) is qualified to speak on the subject being discussed and (b) what they say is directly relevant to and informs that subject (Kramer 2022). Josheb wants to disagree with this in the context of our discussion but he can't, and I'll show you why.

Qualified Expertise: If the subject at hand is theological anthropology—and it is—then Berkouwer is certainly qualified to speak on that subject. He obtained his doctorate (Th.D.) in the field of theology, with a sub-discipline in systematic theology. He also occupied the chair in systematic theology of the Vrije Universiteit (UV) Amsterdam, and authored the influential multi-volume Studies in Dogmatics (1949-1972). According to Louis Berkhof, he was committed to producing work in systematic theology that was grounded in careful exegesis of the biblical texts for all doctrinal teaching.

Why is this relevant? Because theological anthropology, the study of human nature, is one of the main categories of a systematic theology, and answering the question of whether man (i) has a soul or (ii) is a soul draws from theological anthropology, and Berkouwer is demonstrably an expert on systematic theology (i.e., he possesses extensive knowledge in a particular area acquired through formal education, for which he earned a doctorate that validates his expertise).

Relevant Body of Work: Studies in Dogmatics: Man – The Image of God was the eighth volume of his series, published in 1962. In this volume, Berkouwer wrote deeply about the meaning of the image and how it relates to sin, grace, the new man, freedom, immortality, and last things. In particular, he critiques views which exclude man's body from the image of God, something that we find Calvin promoting in Book I, Chapter 15, Section 3. "The image was sought in the higher aspects of man," Berkouwer explained (i.e., the rational and spiritual),

since it was thought that these could be thought of as being similar to qualities possessed by God. This division also has in its background the stress on the incorporeality of God, incorporalitas Dei, which seemed for many to imply that man could resemble or image God in his spirit, but not in his body. (1962, 75)
​

He observed that Calvin

acknowledges that the image lies primarily in the understanding, or in the heart, in the soul and its powers; but there is nevertheless "no part of man, not even his body, which is not adorned with some rays of its glory." But Calvin is really concerned here more with a general reflection of God's majesty in all the works of his hand than with the image of God as including man's body specifically. ... Neither Ursinus nor Calvin denied the importance of the body, but they did deny that it could be part of the image of God. (76)
​

It seems that Calvin didn't really know how to handle the question of how the body was related to the image of God, nor did he recognize the troubling impact of excluding the body from the image—questions and issues which Berkouwer dives deep into exploring and answering.

Why is this relevant? Because it demonstrates that Berkouwer's study is directly relevant to and informs the subject at hand.

Ergo, citing Berkouwer would be a legitimate appeal to authority, not a fallacious one.

Berkouwer is not an expert. Plenty of dispensationalist and synergist theologians would laugh in your face at that implication ...

The question of Berkouwer's expertise is not settled by whether or not someone would laugh at the idea.

I commended the very good and valid example provided but asked for an explanation how that is a mistake when measured by something other than a fallacious appeal to a competing authority.

Calvin's error is exposed by scripture, which is what Berkouwer demonstrates by contrasting dualism and monism. I don't understand how you failed to grasp that point.

If Calvin is pitted against Berkouwer or any other human, then all we have is two competing theologians and neither may be correct.

Only if we ignore the evidence that they bring to bear. As you pointed out, it is scripture that determines whether or not either is correct. Berkouwer spends over 300 pages making an extensive biblical case that not only critiques dualism as controversial (exploring a problem of which Calvin seemed unaware) but also defends monism as consistent with and faithful to all of scripture.

Scripture trumps Berkouwer every time.

—a fact Berkouwer himself would be the first to admit, which anyone who has read his works would know.

Do you have a Bible? If so, then try proving Calvin's view of the soul using the one authority to which we all here subscribe.

If I believe that Calvin's view is erroneous—and I do, as I said—then why would you ask me to prove his view from scripture? When I said that Calvin erred on this, what I meant is that his view runs afoul of scripture, as Berkouwer makes clearly evident.


-----

Berkouwer, G. C. (1962). Man: The image of God (Vol. 8). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Kramer, L. (2022, December 13). Appeal to authority fallacy: Definition and examples. Grammarly.com.

 

[Josheb]

For the reader's sake, I shall try once more to explain this as clearly as possible.

Not all appeals to authority are fallacious.

Agreed, but on this occasion, yours is, and you undermined your own effort by citing Berkouwer instead scripture.

 

[Carbon]

I agree with Calvin on sanctification also.
Here is what he wrote. Indstitutes Book 3, ch 14, vs 11.

And Paul does not say to the Ephesians that we have the beginning of salvation from grace but that we have been saved through grace, "not by works, lest any man should boast" Eph 2:8-9.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Agreed, but on this occasion, yours is, and you undermined your own effort by citing Berkouwer instead scripture.

Please explain how it was fallacious.

 

[Josheb]

Please explain how it was fallacious.

No.

 

[Carbon]

No.

why not?

 

[Josheb]

I'd like to thank all of you for participating and contributing answers and non-answers to the op's inquiry. The op was prompted by conversations I have been having with what might accurately be described as "Calvinist ideologues." Because of my work in mental health and my intentional efforts to work with local Christian congregations and non-profits I regularly interact with an enormously diverse set of believers BUT my own affiliations lay firmly with those of the classic Augustinian Reformed perspectives. I have noticed ideological allegiance to certain theologies (like Dispensationalism, and Dispensational Premillennialism) for decades. It appears whenever the question, "Where'd you get that?" occurs because the answer is typically, "In the Bible," and then, when handed a Bible and asked to show me one of two things ensue: 1) they do not know where to find what they believe in scripture or 2) what scripture states is not what they say scripture says. In other words, when attention is put on the distinction between "states," and "says," a problem occurs and either rancorous ad hominem ensues or various forms of denial ensue (like, well, that's what it means, or changing the subject to another verse - a verse that also does not state what is claimed about it).

All because I asked, "Where did you get that?" Asking folks for their source is enormously revealing - when they are honest and forthcoming. For this reason @DialecticSkeptic is to be commended. He's the only one who could specify a source for his claims. Well done. On the rare occasion I can get a person to say, "Well, I got that from reading ______________," or "_____________ has been very influential in my regards to this topic," then a conversation about the nature of believing extra-biblical sources (and why they may be trusted over scripture) can ensue. Often times I will expound on the teachings of a given theology, always citing their own leading sources, and read or hear, "That's not what I believe." In other words, they believe the teaching or Mr. X or Dr. Y, but 1) do not know all that X or Y taught, and when exposed to the teachings of X and Y they then deny agreement. In other words, the problems in that theology are unknown to the adherent. They know what they like. They know what they agree with. One of the most basic tell-tale signs is the biased reading of scripture were what is supposedly "implied" is considered what is stated, and another very basic indicator is the difficulty seeing the addition (the blindness preventing the otherwise objectively obvious difference from being seen).

So, I was curious about this with Calvinism.

Calvin was prodigious. He is one of the preeminent exegetes in Christian history. Agree with him or not, that man delved into scripture analytically and there is an enormous pile on product from him. Combined with the other Reformers and the monergistic viewpoint (for example) has been asserted aplenty and done so vigorously. As most (if not all) of us here in attendance know, Calvinist theology 1) is NOT monolithic and 2) has developed and been refined a) since its roots in Agustine and b) over the last five centuries following the Reformation. Yet few people I have ever met realize this progress, the development, the changes, the refinements made of the last few centuries occurred simply because it needed to happen. There were errors and inconsistencies that required attention and correction. I do not know about your Google searches because Google tracks our searches and gives biased results based on prior internet usage. I mention this because I can Google, "What differences did Spurgeon have with Calvin?" or "How is R. C. Sproul different from A. W. Pink? or "What are the differences between John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards?" and get actual results. I hope you can, too. This is important because, sadly, an in-house Google results that come from among other Calvinists is unlikely. A query "problems with John Calvin's views" will more likely result with a plethora of his opponents' views (all of whom are synergists, not monergists). You're all intelligent, earnest, and sincere posters. The question this op asked exposed some problems. Go fix them. You each have the faculties and resources to do so.








It is not okay to blindly adhere to any one man's theology (other than Jesus, or perhaps Paul ). Go read Calvin in his own words, not just second-hand and third-hand accounts of his ~ism. Realize exactly how Catholic he was in his early years and how far Protestant Calvinism has removed itself from Roman Catholicism. Do not be ideologues. The next time someone asks, "Are you aware of any specific problems Calvin himself had in his teachings?" have an honest and forthcoming answer besides, "What?" or "No, but I'm sure there are some."

 

[Josheb]

Go read Calvin in his own words....

My bad. I meant to add this: Calvin's "Institutes on the Christian Religion" is well worth the read but it is not the text to read if an understanding of his Protestant theology is wanted. It is his commentaries where he dove meticulously into scripture and wrote about his theological perspectives (that often departed from the RCCism of his day). Reading his commentaries is a long-term task (one I myself probably won't complete for lack of interest). He wrote commentaries on 50 of the Bible's 66 books! His commentary on Romans was among the first. I'd recommend starting there (try Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews after that). He also wrote sermons series on a few of the Bible's books (such his sermons of Galatians). The Accordance Bible software has an add-on of his commentaries. Many of them can be found online at places like Monergism.com, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, and Bible Hub.

Learn Calvinism as taught by Calvin. Learn Calvin's Calvinism in Calvin's own words. Take not of the places where you disagree. If you're Calvinist and disagree with Calvinism, then go find the reconciling point of view (and read that guy in his/her own words ). I just had a conversation with an online friend who posts memes from noted Calvinists and when I brought up my often-occurring dissent with Pink...... he acknowledged the same feeling but couldn't articulate why. His knowledge of other Cals is extensive, but not sufficient to satisfy the already existing rub he had with Pink. These things happen. They are good things, or at least they serve a good purpose if they prompt us to self-examination and the development of a set of doctrines that can withstand critical examination coming from many diverse perspectives.

 

[3 Resurrections]

He wrote commentaries on 50 of the Bible's 66 books! His commentary on Romans was among the first. I'd recommend starting there

For just one example, I took a look at Calvin's Commentary interpretation of Romans 8:20-22: a text which I was curious as to how he treated this. Calvin failed the test on this one. He fell into the trap of thinking that the animal creation and the created earth under our feet is groaning, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God. God already long ago removed the curse on the ground back in Genesis after the flood. Calvin also apparently believed animal death was a result of the fall, which scripture never teaches.

To quote a portion of Calvin's commentary on Romans 8:20-22,

"For the intent expectation of the creation, etc. He teaches us that there is an example of the patience, to which he had exhorted us, even in mute creatures. For, to omit various interpretation, I understand the passage to have this meaning - that there is no element and no part of the world which, being touched, as it were, with a sense of its present misery, does not intensely hope for a resurrection."

Animals and the elements that form this planet are not intently waiting in hope to participate in a resurrection process. Christ did not die to redeem the brute creatures of the animal creation. He would have had to come as a beast Himself in order to accomplish that as their representative. Calvin's doctrine is really twisted on this passage.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I have noticed ideological allegiance to certain theologies (like dispensationalism, and dispensational premillennialism) for decades. It appears whenever the question [is asked], "Where'd you get that?" […] because the answer is typically, "In the Bible," and then, when handed a Bible and asked to show me, one of two things ensue: [either] they do not know where to find what they believe in scripture, or what scripture states is not what they say scripture says. […] Asking folks for their source is enormously revealing—when they are honest and forthcoming.

While I appreciate the kind words @Josheb had to say about me, I don't understand his claim here that I am the only one who could "specify a source for his claims." His opening post had asked, essentially, "Assuming that Calvin was not inerrant, what is a specific example of an error you believe he made?" That is to say, Josheb never asked people to provide sources for their beliefs or claims (beyond the possibly expected source for Calvin's error). And while I did provide two sources, one where Calvin's error could be found and another which amply demonstrated his error, the latter was entirely accidental because Josheb didn't ask readers to provide sources.

If anyone wants to know what I believe about human souls, I am happy to describe it and provide sources. (I hinted at a couple in this thread.) But if this thread is about what Calvin got wrong, then it's not the place for showcasing my own theological views. I think Calvin's belief X wrong, I cited a source where he demonstrates his belief X, and I briefly described why his belief X is a problem while also providing a source that explores the biblical case for that criticism (and even defends an alternative view that is more consistent with and faithful to scripture).

I thought that's what Josheb was requesting. He comes across as wanting a biblical argument for why Calvin was wrong about this or that, but also lacking any appreciation for sources which provide exactly what he seems to want.

Perhaps I am just mistaken about what Josheb wants.

It is not okay to blindly adhere to any one man's theology ...

I suspect that literally nobody here does that anyway.