From: co-westminster@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:04 AM To: co-westminster@yahoogroups.com Subject: [co-westminster] Digest Number 121 There are 5 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 From: "Jonathan OBrien" 2. Re: Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 From: "Dr. Chuck Baynard" 3. Re: Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 From: SDGieseDTS@aol.com 4. RE: Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 From: "Pastor Richard Bacon" 5. Re: Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 From: "Dr. Chuck Baynard" ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:00:51 -0000 From: "Jonathan OBrien" Subject: Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 First of all, let me say thanks to the moderators for this forum and for the study questions. I admit that I have not been too chatty so far but I have done the readings and considered the questions. Second, I will throw off the veil of secrecy and admit that I am a master's student currently writing my thesis in systematic theology. The concepts in I.1-5 of the Institutes are crucial to what I am doing. I am writing on Reformed epistemology and its understanding of the relationship of the sensus divinitatis (the "sense of the divine"/"seed of religion" idea in I.3), regeneration, the noetic effects of sin, and the knowledge of God. If you are not a trained academic, please don't run though! I have a simple question here (though it is crucial to my larger argument) and I covet the help and insight of anyone who replies. Plus, it is directly on the topic that our readings have recently covered. The question is this: Does Calvin present the sensus divinitatis as a structural element (using Hoekema's terminology) in the human makeup, whose purpose is to yield a full-blown belief in the God of Scripture? This is basically Plantinga's position. He calls the SD, "a reliable belief-producing mechanism." Before you answer consider that Derek Jeffreys says that Plantinga overlooks the fact that in I.1 and 2, Calvin makes a distinction between 1) a basic numinous, unformed knowledge of God as Creator and 2) a full-blown knowledge of God as benevolent (what Calvin calls "piety"). Jeffreys says that the SD is only aimed at the former type of knowledge. Only the Word and regeneration can produce the latter, salvific knowledge of God. Matter of fact, he says, the SD is always perverted--it always leads to superstition and never a proper knowledge of God without the Holy Spirit and the Word. Read I.3 with that thought in mind and see how Calvin does spend a lot of time discussing how the SD gets perverted into various heretical beliefs in different cultures. Also consider that Merold Westphal says Plantinga overlooks Calvin's emphasis on the noetic effects of sin. He asks what "entire depravity" means if not that all aspects of the human makeup are affected by sin and do not yield a salvific knowledge of God. Further, it seems that if we accept Anthony Hoekema's distinction of the image of God as having both structural (reason, body, conscience, the SD, etc.) and functional aspects (the knowledge of God, righteousness, holiness, etc.) and further, that the functional aspects are universally lost in fallen man and are only recovered partially in a state of grace in this life, then the SD as a structural aspect (which assertion is questionable as well) cannot yield a full-blown knowledge of God as benevolent since the functional result it produces--that very belief--is universally suppressed, lost, and obliterated in the Fall. An analogue is the body. It is a structual component of the image but its functional aspect--yielding praise to God, eternal life, etc. are all lost in the Fall and only recoverable in a state of grace. In summary, my idea is that the SD is not aimed at producing salvific theistic belief ala Plantinga but is only present to ensure the moral culpability of the lost since they universally suppress it and turn the urgings of the SD into occasions for idolatry. I think all the critiques apply and Hoekema's distinction is valid. What I am wondering is if I am understanding the SD correctly and if anyone has any thoughts on this issue. I am sorry for the length of this post but I think it may be useful to spark some fruitful discussion and produce greater understanding of what Calvin is getting at. Thanks ahead of time for responses. Coram deo, Jonathan O'Brien ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:21:38 -0500 From: "Dr. Chuck Baynard" Subject: Re: Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 Jonathan, Thank you for a most salient post -- Very briefly -- Since Calvin was first, we shall assume others have expanded on his presentation. However I do not find your basic understanding out of line with Calvin on a first read this morning. The fall is complete and the SD will only proceed to reveal God and the truth of God's existence and the truth that God alone should be worshiped. The sense of the divine then doesn't lead to salvation in any way whatsoever, it does however convict most completely in that man deliberately ignores the SD and does what man imagines man should do. Calvin spends some time showing how it is perverted in several cultures in my opinion to show that there is not a system that will lead to the truth outside of the supernatural revelation of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. All mankind has this SD, all mankind has a natural inclination to worship and who and where they are have not led to truth, only the Holy Spirit speaking within the Word of God brings saving knowledge. In other words Calvin short circuits those who don't understand all have fallen totally and ask what about the Jews, to listen and reply again what about the Egyptians etc. I believe Calvin reveals the natural revelation that exists in SD is present in all and fails in all even as Paul does in Romans 1. This clearly places sin at the feet of the created and establishes the Gospel that those who do not believe are condemned already. It is in accord with Dort where it is said "because of sin." We can run down a thousand rabbit trails here but the core is man is totally depraved and cannot save himself. This is crucial to the whole of a reformed systematics and any wavering here will lead to a faulty whole. We are all most correct in emulation of Calvin then to develop this foundation carefully and most completely before proceeding to the rest of what it all means point by point. Chuck Baynard, LLD, ThD 1st EPC Clover, SC www.cloverepc.org Church -- check out our new Bible lessons www.christianobserver.org The Christian observer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan OBrien" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:00 PM Subject: [co-westminster] Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:06:26 EST From: SDGieseDTS@aol.com Subject: Re: Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 Sounds like an excellent topic Jonathan. I don't presently have time to respond, but I think you will find the following helpful and quite insightful: Calvin, Plantinga, and the Natural Knowledge of God:A Response to Beversluis Beversluis THE PROSPECTS FOR"MEDIATE" NATURAL THEOLOGY IN JOHN CALVIN Calvin Paper An Assessment Of Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology (A review of Warranted Christian Belief) Imran Aijaz http://www.geocities.com/critical_discourse/re.htm Perhaps you already have this link, but if you don't, you should: philofreligion I think you will find some of the papers, etc. on this website to be invaluable in your studies. Godspeed, Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:48:49 -0600 From: "Pastor Richard Bacon" Subject: RE: Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 > We can run down a thousand rabbit trails here but the core is > man is totally > depraved and cannot save himself. But Chuck, "rabbit trails" are what doctoral dissertations are made of!! Richard Bacon, Pastor First Presbyterian Church Rowlett, TX PastorCam at: http://home.attbi.com/~pastorbacon1/cam.html --- Outgoing mail scanned for known viruses and certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:51:00 -0500 From: "Dr. Chuck Baynard" Subject: Re: Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 Yep! And this one is one of those Texas Jackalope trails:) Seems so clear until you get hung on the horns... Chuck Baynard, LLD, ThD 1st EPC Clover, SC www.cloverepc.org Church -- check out our new Bible lessons www.christianobserver.org The Christian observer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pastor Richard Bacon" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:48 AM Subject: RE: [co-westminster] Discussion item on Institutes I. 1-5 > > We can run down a thousand rabbit trails here but the core is > > man is totally > > depraved and cannot save himself. > > But Chuck, "rabbit trails" are what doctoral dissertations are made of!! > > > Richard Bacon, Pastor > First Presbyterian Church > Rowlett, TX > PastorCam at: http://home.attbi.com/~pastorbacon1/cam.html > > > ---