The logical problem with Calvin and Calvinism

[TonyChanYT]

350 BCE, Aristotle discovered logical syllogism.

1854, George Boole published "An Investigation of the Laws of Thought" and started Boolean propositional logic.

1879, Gottlob Frege laid the groundwork for First-Order Logic. FOL underpins all modern science and mathematics.

1559, John Calvin finalized and published his Institutes. At best, in terms of logical reasoning, he could only analyze the scriptures using Aristotelian logic and contemporary scholastic rhetoric, which lacked the formal precision endowed in FOL. His systematic theology lacked the rigor and precision afforded by the modern axiomatic argumentation system. People often conflate logic and rhetoric.

E.g., Institutes, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 8:

Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature.

Calvin did not use "therefore" in the first-order logical sense. The words "therefore" and "seems" do not go together in their FOL senses. The word "seem" carries subjective evaluation. FOL's "therefore" carries objective precision. He did not think according to the precise syntax of FOL. No one did in the 16th century.

An example of such Calvinism logical flaw is double predestination. Try to prove that double predestination is true strictly by FOL and you will see.

Similarly, since the time of Frege, many theologians have not been trained in FOL. They suffer the same handicap. Aristotelian syllogism is a primitive precursor of FOL. (See appendix below.) There is now a more articulate and comprehensive logical system.

John Calvin used Aristotle's logical system, which was okay. I prefer the more up-to-date First-Order Logical system when I argue. Simpler logical systems are fine when I am not engaging in argumentation.

See also

• A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics
• Was it possible for Paul to become a G96-REPROBATE?

Appendix: Reformulate a syllogism into FOL
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.

Using Aristotelian syllogism, we can draw the following conclusion:

Socrates is mortal.

Now, let's rewrite the above using the FOL syntax.

∀x (Human(x) → Mortal(x))
Human(Socrates)

From these statements in FOL, one can logically infer:

Mortal(Socrates)

 

[Josheb]

This op is a red herring.

It assumes FOL is the measure of all logic and all of Calvinism, when neither is the case. That's not very FOL to assume premises not in evidence.



The op is also a strawman.

The phrase, "it seems," is a matter of translation and differences are found in different translations. I looked Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 8 up and I did so in several different source. My own personal copy of the Institutes and the free online version found at CCEL, translate the quote as, "Original sin, therefore may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of the nature, extending to all the parts of the soul..." The version found at the CUNY site renders the text as is reported in the op. Calvin University renders this passage differently from the other two. It has, "Original sin, therefore, appears to be...." Furthermore, the op quote mines The Institutes and fails to include the evidence and record of reasoning contained in The Institutes whereby Calvin logically concluded original sin is a hereditary condition affecting the entire soul.

So here, again, the op has violated the condition of FOL. Seeking to assert FOL, it fails to do so, and fails in more than one way.



The op is also guilty of other assumptions, gross neglect and misrepresentation. The op assumes, "John Calvin used Aristotle's logical system, which was okay. I prefer the more up-to-date First-Order Logical system when I argue," but in Book 2, Chapter 5, Section 2, Calvin reported what he called "four absurdities advanced by the opponents of the orthodox doctrine concerning the slavery of the will," and one of those absurdities was that of "Aristotle and Pelagius." Throughout The Institutes Calvin alternatively affirms some aspects of Aristotle's views and methods, and in other areas he openly rejects them. When it came to the matter of original sin Aristotle was rejected. This is explained further in Section 2 (the links have already been provided above). The op has it incorrect.

So, again, the op has violated its own rules and abused FOL by not basing its predicate logic on fact and making assumptions directly contrary to the precept of FOL. In other words, the OP violates it's own precepts multiple times and multiple ways.



Perhaps worst of all, however, is the op completely fails to provide links to The Institutes so the reader may verify its claims about Calvin. Instead, the op links the reader to the author's own personal opinions on logic he's already violated. In other words, instead of connecting the reader to any objective source of information upon which a consensus may be built regardless of personal opinion or doctrinal bias, the op asserts an FOL-violating personal opinion and then asks the reads to accept more FOL-violating personal opinion to justify the first FOL-violating personal opinion AND it does so despite the fact the objective information is free and readily accessible (it took me seconds to find the sources I provided). The op, therefore, proves to be a matter of neglect and deception, and not merely an unwitting mistake. There's no excuse for this kind of sloppiness, especially since all the evidence points to self-aggrandizement and not an objective understanding of Calvin, Calvinism, or any "logical problem" with either.

I will take up the specific matter of Calvin's logic in a separate post and then attend to the topic of "original sin" in a third.

 

[Josheb]

In regard to Calvin's "logic," it should first understand Calvin's "The Institutes on the Christian Religion," was a pivotal literary, philosophical, and theological work in human history (not just Christian history) BUT Calvin was not trying to be objective. EVERYTHING Calvin wrote in his Institutes comes with a pre-existing religious bias and all the doctrinal biases that accompanied his 16th century Catholicism. That is correct; I said Catholicism. Calvin wrote The Institutes as an effort to reform the Roman Catholic Church's (RCC) doctrines and practices. Calvin was not a member of any Protestant denomination when he wrote The Institutes and when he started that tome, he was still RC and had no intent to leave the RCC. The Institutes was originally a very brief recommendation of reforms. Calvin added to The Institutes as he grew older. The original version had only six chapters! Because The Institutes was intended as an effort to reform Roman Catholicism it is NOT the best source for understanding Calvin's own theology. For that a person should read his commentaries. In his commentaries Calvin exegetes the scriptures and asserts his still-Catholic-influenced views.

Calvin and the other early Reformers worked from and relied upon prior theologians. Calvin cites Augustine as a major source. So too did Arminius. In point of fact, the doctrine of "original sin" was not Calvin's invention and he was not asserting views different from a millennium of prior theologians, including Augustine. This is very important because Arminius was also Augustinian AND a subscriber of both original sin and total depravity. Multiple landmark debates occurred in Christendom between those on the side of determinative sin and volitionalism. Augustine's debate with Pelagius was revisited a millennium later with Luther and Erasmus. Calvin had nothing to do with either.

To neglect these easily verifiable facts and misrepresent through silence the premise original sin is Calvin's doing or Calvin's view is abuse. It abuses Calvin and all the predecessors from which he drew, it abuses Christian history, and it abuses the reader of this op by committing lies of omission under the guise of quote mining first order logic.

 

[Josheb]

As far as the doctrine of "original sin, or the premise all of Adam and Eve's progeny were adverse affected by Adam and Eve's disobedience, we now possess a plethora of information not available to the early church fathers (ECFs) when the doctrine of original sin was first formulated and formalized, and the information we possess in modernity confirms the doctrine.

We can now look into the brain of a living human being and objectively document changes in the brain, and we can do that on a cellular and intracellular level. One of the things that has been discovered is that traumatic events (like the death caused by sin asserted in scripture and the subsequent estrangement from God, self, others, and creation) directly cause instantaneous changes in the brain at a cellular level. Instantaneous changes in neural pathways occur where the pathway(s) operable in the episode becomes associated with the traumatic event and then generalized as the processing pathway for any similar occasion. In addition, other neural pathways that are otherwise physically available are not used and/or relegated to secondary roles. Over the course of time an individual also develops patterns of behavior that avoid using the trauma-dedicated pathway in favor of those not associated with trauma or pain. In addition, trauma causes the brain to "compartmentalize." Not only is information processed differently but certain parts of the brain cannot or do not access other parts. Combat veterans and rape survivors, for example, have been documented not being able to connect the memory recall portion of the brain with the speech part of the brain. Recent discoveries has also evidenced a correlation between trauma and auto-immune diseases (like cancer, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hypo- and hyper-thyroid conditions.

Basic biological research has also shown that over the course of time a record of our experience is eventually transferred to every single cell in the body so that skin cells, kidney cells, toenail cells, etc. ALL share some record of the original traumatic event. The process by which cells divide, differentiate, and transfer information is called mitosis. It takes about three years for the human body to replace every cell in its body, and this happens multiple times throughout the normal human lifespan. This information eventuall gets transmitted to the gonads and when a man and a woman procreate, they transfer a portion of their experience to their progeny, and they do that at a cellular level unawares to both the parents and the offspring!

Therefore.....

Even though the ECFs did not possess this information when they prayerfully and vigorously debated the doctrine we now call "Original Sin," they are proved correct by biology. They were considering the theological implication of scripture's report of Genesis 3 (and other texts) but the fact is there is also a very real, profound, and objectively verifiable biological basis for that doctrine. Calvin was correct, whether the logic used was flawed or impeccable.



We sin because we are sinful, and we are sinful because we sin. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions.