Calvinism Defended:
Calvin on the Trinity, and Those Manichaean Calvinists
By
This is the 22d section of the e-mail exchange I had with Bill, an individual who objected to Calvinism. Click here to go back to the table of contents, or here to go to the full 88 page exchange.
My First E-mail: Either He has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, or He doesn’t. The only thing needed to demonstrate that the opposing view of freewill is incorrect is to assert what the Lord Himself asserts: “For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who shall disannul it? His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” (Isaiah 14:27), and again, “Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.” (Isa 46:9-11).
Many, many more passages could be cited. If you could provide an exegetical response concerning just those 2 passages that is faithful to your idea of “freewill,” I’d be most interested in hearing it.
4.
Finally, just because the Manicheans denied freewill does not mean that
they were wrong in denying freewill per se.
In every heretical sect, there are things that can be found that are
indeed true. For example, the
Jehovah Witnesses believe that there is one God.
Does this mean that every Christian teacher who affirms that there is but
one God is wrong, merely because the Jehovah Witnesses also teach the same
thing? Obviously not.
Bill's Response: JWs teach that God is one; the Bible teaches that God is a plural unity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Please don’t put yourself in the same boat as the JWs. Calvin had theological difficulty with the Trinity of God and this resulted in other Calvinists such as Sir Isaac Newton, John Milton, and John Locke rejecting the full deity of the Son of God.
My Response: First, it
is pretty convenient how just bypassed and ignored the passages I cited in my
first response before my statement about the Jehovah Witnesses.
You just went right to the comment about them.
Second, Bill, not only do JWs teach that God is one, so does the Bible
and biblical Christianity. What the
Bible teaches is that there is one God who is eternally existent in three
distinct persons (what you call a “plural unity.” By the way, I’ve
searched the Bible high and low, and cannot find the words “plural unity.”
Alas, I won’t charge you Bill with coming up with vain man-made terms.
As for
Calvin having a “problem” with the Trinity, I find that extremely curious,
since it was Calvin’s staunch adherence to the Trinity that infuriated
Servetus, and which eventually led to Servetus’ demise at the hands of the
city council at Geneva (another historical inaccuracy perpetuated by Calvin’s
enemies is that Calvin had Servetus put to death. He did not). If
there were any hint that Calvin had “theological difficulty with the
Trinity,” it is quite certain that he would have suffered the same fate that
every other person in that era suffered who taught heresy.
Not only that, but Calvin’s Institutes are organized in Trinitarian
fashion! He begins by speaking
about the nature of God, the Trinity, etc., and starts with the Father, then
moves on to the Son, and finally the Holy Spirit.
As for his precise statements concerning the Trinity, I will refer you
simply to the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 13.
Not only are Calvin’s statements concerning the Trinity orthodox, but
they are often referred to even today by those who wish to defend the doctrine
of the Trinity against those who oppose it.
With
reference to Newton, Milton, and Locke, first, I find it a bit of stretch to
call them “Calvinists.” You’ll
have to provide the direct source that clearly affirms their Calvinism.
Second, even if they did affirm the so-called 5 points of Calvinism and
yet denied the Trinity, they would still not be considered Calvinists, because
Calvinists affirm that salvation/redemption is a Trinitarian work.
This is why Calvinists demur having Calvinism reduced to a mere 5 points.
Calvinism is not merely 5 points. Those
5 points were a response
to 5 points of disagreement that the Arminian’s had with the
teaching of the Reformed church in the Netherlands (an important historical fact
that you seem to want to ignore for whatever reason).
Your
whole point then is both fallacious, in that you wrongly assert that Calvin was
something less than Trinitarian, and it also is falls into the genetic fallacy
logical error (which you have continually made throughout).
Even if I granted that Calvin denied the Trinity, and that the persons
you mentioned who also denied the Trinity were “Calvinists,” what are we to
make of the thousands of others who have called themselves “Calvinists,” and
do adhere to the Trinity? I could just as easily argue that those who followed Calvin
are strong Trinitarians because of Calvin’s influence, not despite Calvin’s
influence.
Finally,
and yet once again, the whole point you are advancing is just another red
herring being advanced to divert attention from the issues.
The fact that Locke and others may have denied then Trinity has
absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand.
From
My First E-mail: Now, when we begin to
explore more about what Jehovah Witnesses believe about the one true God, as
compared with what Christians teach about the one true God, we begin to see vast
differences. This equally applies
to the Manichean/Augustine/Calvin comparison that you have advanced.
Bill's Response:
Manicheans
believed in:
Augustine
was a Manichean and he idealized NeoPlatonic Theology.
I’m going to make the logical conclusion that Augustine derived his
theology from Manichean and NeoPlatonic Theology.
I don’t think you can deny the link between Augustine and Calvin.
My Response: First, I’ve already dealt with this before.
By the way, Calvin did not accept everything Augustine taught, yet
another fact that you seem to either not know, or just choose to ignore in an
effort to bolster whatever claims you want to make.
Second, you
state that Manicheans believed in TULIP. Well,
as they say in Missouri: show me.
It’s one thing to make an accusation or assertion, quite another to
back it up with clear facts. Show
me the primary sources, and how what the Manicheans taught is precisely the same
as Reformed theology teaches, to include demonstrating that the Manicheans
understanding of redemption was a Trinitarian concept.
Third,
you state: “Augustine
was a Manichean and he idealized NeoPlatonic Theology.”
The word
“was” with reference to Augustine’s relationship to Manichaeism is the key
word. He was at one time a
Manichean, but then rejected that teaching for Christianity, and then wrote
prolifically against Manichean teaching. Those
are the facts. As for Augustine
idealizing Neo Platonic philosophy; guilty as charged. And, again, just how do
these things have any bearing on the exegesis of the key texts in question?
They don’t.