The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Calvin & Juan - integrating faith & learning ?

'There is yet another dilemma. At some Christian colleges, we accept as part of our academic work the task of integrating our faith with our understanding. Integration suggests bringing things together; discovering how a set of systems can correspond. We search for consistency between what we "know" regarding our disciplines and what we "know" regarding our faith. Yet, for both Calvin and don Juan, integration is an erroneous task as it employs reason as its basic tool. For both men, reason deludes, because it only works within one of two aspects of reality. If the rules for knowing truly change across the boundary of these two realities, then the most we can hope for is a description of the parameters of two separate systems, not an integration of faith and learning. How will we then bill our academic task as a Christian college in a competitive market?'

From: 'Surprised by Calvin'
Arnold D. Froese, Sterling College
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/facdialogue/Issue26/Froese.html

Seeing as this is a subject that comes up regularly in one form or another, I wondered if this insightful article, (Please read it all, before you comment), might be enlightening to the board.

Get out those specs now gents, it's time to read.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

The conflicting natures of fallen Adam and risen Christ are well documented in the Scriptures. The nature of "the natural man" whose wisdom and lofty ideas blind him to the "foolishness of the gospel" as opposed to "the spiritual man" who, though "not wise, not mighty, not noble," has been favored above the wise and strong (see 1st Corinthians 1:26-29).

Paul's description of God's choice of the weak and the ordinary over the strong and noble in no way conflicts with the Lord's command to think on good things, to have our minds renewed through God's word, and to judge righteously.


There is no justification Scripturally for efforts to "integrate" the fallen, corrupt nature of the old man with the new nature of the regenerate! God's solution is not integration, but deliverance through the Cross (putting the old to death with Christ) and the resurrection (bringing to life the new in Christ). The full and final solution is yet to come:


-Robin

Straw,

And what "subject" is it that you say comes up regularly? You obviously are either struggling with something or perhaps you believe that this person has the answer/defense to something you embrace as true . . . perhaps both.

Yes, I read through the article, even more than once. But before I comment on what I read, or decide even if I will comment, I want to know the purpose behind your wanting this article read and the point you think/hope it makes? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Dear Pilgrim,

I have no set purpose. It is just something that I have often found part of numerous (live) discussions I have enjoyed with students and past students of Higher learning. It appear that the writer has articulated the problem well and has presented a very interesting and thoughtful take on the late J.C. by contrasting him with don Juan.

I am still reading and drinking deep from this really intersting paper. I would welcome your insights and any of those on the board who are willing to make the effort, as you have, to consider the ideas and respond if they so wish.

Perhaps I might have written in my opening post. Hey y'all what do you think of this interesting article. I just found it related on so many levels to what I has been discussed in my own company with little instigation, I hope that I have not stirred the pot to furiously. If so I am willing to beat a fierce retreat to my little rock of slumber.

Blushing,

Straw,

I find it rather amusing, in a crass sort of way, that you openly reject the teachings of those who are esteemed by the historic Protestant Church to one degree or another but here you are finding more than interesting this particular man's musings which are contrary to the teachings of the historic Protestant Church. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

First of all, one must at least "consider the source" to gain some insight as to where the writer is coming from:

The PCUSA is infamous for its heretical (Liberal) theology. Many in that denomination deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the historicity of Adam and Eve, the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ, the need of regeneration, repentance and faith, etc., ad nauseam. They consider the Westminster Standards as valuable "historical documents" but they hardly adhere to them as being a summary of biblical truth nor a standard by which one should conform themselves.

Secondly, I would suggest that Mr. Froese has failed to understand Calvin; specifically Calvin's teaching concerning the matter of knowledge and faith. John Calvin held that faith, albeit a supernatural work and gift of God the Spirit, came via the knowledge of the truth. For surely one cannot believe something if that something is unknown. (cf. Rom 10:17; Lk 16:29-31; 1Cor 1:18-24; Col 1:4-6; 1Thess 2:13; Jam 1:18-21; 1Pet 1:23-25)

What Calvin was saying about faith being "supernatural" vs. "natural" had to do with those things which were not revealed in Scripture, and not mere speculation about everything or anything supernatural, i.e., not discernible empirically. For surely, just the incredible amount of material which Calvin wrote and defended dogmatically should be enough to dispel such a notion.

Thirdly, to put John Calvin in the same basket as Carlos Castaneda is laughable. The latter had no foundation of propositional truth upon which to "know" much about life and thus was left with nothing more than sinful philosophical speculation. Calvin, on the other hand, had God's inspired written Word of God which was embedded into his mind and heart by the ministration of the Holy Spirit and through which he was able to discern reality and truth. And it was this reality and truth as revealed by God in His written Word that Calvin's faith was formed and rested upon.

In His grace,

Dear Pilgrim,

Thanks for expressing your ideas so succinctly.

However, the fact that whenever others disagree with you particular theological position they are referred to as 'heretical', I find a little irksome.

I expected you to first attack the credentials of the author, but you gave me no respite. It's alright I am getting used to being called names on this forum. I am not going to check back through all the threads but I have been called a 'heretic' (that surely sums up all the others Arminian, Charismatic, Semi-Pelagian etc. Jesus did warn that we should not expect a bed of roses, instead a bed of nails. <look my U2 references coming through.)

Personally, I see not harm in questioning every creed written by man, (regardless of whether they claim divine inspiration or not.) To honestly question one's creed is not a deed punishable by death, though it might resort in cremation (not literal) by those who hold hard, maybe too hard to what is written about the Scriptures, for the Scriptures themselves are creed. Often the tampering that happens is harmful, but most times it is a desire to get to the marrow, the meaning, the Spirit of the text that often finds, one pitted against another in a wrestling match. The history books of the Church are filled to the brim with these....'Luther vs Erasmus' 'Whitfield vs Wesley' out of these polar opposites in some cases we might learn to trust the written word of God a little more and the interpreters a little less. By all means do not dispense of creedal statements, but never allow one self to be fooled that a 21 year old catechism adequately covers the full scope of divine revelation. The matter that Scripture is historical and progressive leads us to some understanding that we are learners, not teachers all, for the teacher will be exposed to greater judgment (by God). Only because the oracle is always in trouble, always mocked, always ridiculed for saying, 'It say this, or this is what is written therefore, etc.' The tragedy is when what is written by man, be it Athanasius of Alexandria or Tatian, or St Jerome, or Erasmus or whoever, ... John Michael Talbot or the new Pope, to regard such as divine scripture is to commit grossest of error. I do not reject the fact that Scripture is the word of God. I however cannot accept that it is all the things that God has said, John alludes to this fact.

The danger of rejecting Romes Apocryphal writings, and love for it's fathers writings, and saints, and mystic etc and then accomodating protestant writers is hypocrisy and for such it is no wonder that we still stand gaurded against the citadels of Rome, could she be burning because we have raised our skirts just a little too much and not gone for the core of the matter, namely that if one has not the Spirit of Christ, we are none of his. < I deviated to respond to your hex over me.

Okay, I agree about the way Froese has written, he might have brought actual references to j.c's writings, as does Sudduth. It would have made matters less complicated, for many offer commentary upon what Calvin, Luther, Augustine and others who were under the wings of mother church. <notice my lack of caps, please.

If you are going to substantiate your position would you please refer to Calvin's writings with direct quotes so I may view the context.

(Mr) Froese did say that he was only constructing his paper in a way to explain what he was thinking. I suggest you read the article with less of a militant scout mode and more of an open minded thinker who is endeavouring to understand another person way of perceiving what has been perceived in one way, this is how we grown. Surely, you know this by now ?

I will not check back for you exact references to John Calvin, but needless to say it is clear you disagree and I don't. I think there is much to be learned from Calvin that many assuming a traditional position have become a little like stuck record. Time for me to bump this one.

Bump,