The following was from Grok (X/Twitter AI tool) since I’m not a subject matter expert. It was posed as a series of questions and answers. The questions are in bold.
What is the link between Plato, Augustine, and Calvin?
The link between Plato, Augustine, and John Calvin can be traced through philosophical and theological influences that span centuries, focusing primarily on their views on human nature, knowledge, ethics, and the structure of society. Here’s a detailed look at how these thinkers are connected:
Plato (c. 427-347 BC)
Philosophical Foundations: Plato’s ideas, particularly from his works like “The Republic,” “Phaedo,” and “Timaeus,” laid down foundational concepts in philosophy, including:
Theory of Forms: The notion that there is an ideal, perfect version of everything in an abstract, non-physical realm, which the physical world only imperfectly reflects.
The Divided Line: A metaphor for different levels of knowledge from mere opinion to true knowledge.
The Allegory of the Cave: Illustrates the process of enlightenment from ignorance to knowledge and the philosopher’s role.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD)
Influence of Platonism: Augustine was heavily influenced by Neoplatonism, a philosophical school that combined Plato’s ideas with other philosophies. His key works like “Confessions” and “The City of God” show this influence:
Epistemology and Ontology: Augustine adopted Platonic ideas of knowledge and being, arguing for the existence of God as the highest Form or Truth.
Human Nature: His concept of the soul’s journey to God mirrors Plato’s idea of the soul’s ascent from the physical to the ideal realm.
Original Sin: Augustine’s theology of original sin can be seen as an adaptation of Plato’s view of the soul’s fall from perfection, though with a Christian twist.
John Calvin (1509-1564 AD)
Augustinian Theology: Calvin was deeply influenced by Augustine, particularly in his views on grace, predestination, and human depravity:
Predestination: Calvin’s doctrine of predestination echoes Augustine’s thoughts on divine grace and election, where God chooses who will be saved, reflecting a sort of divine knowledge akin to Plato’s Forms.
Total Depravity: The idea that human nature is inherently sinful and incapable of good without divine intervention is a direct extension of Augustine’s views on original sin.
Society and Governance: Calvin’s vision for a theocratic society where church and state work closely together can be seen as an application of Plato’s ideal state, where philosophers (or in Calvin’s case, the elect) lead.
Synthesis:
Philosophical to Theological Transition: Plato’s philosophy provided a framework that Augustine adapted into Christian theology. Calvin then took Augustine’s theological constructs and further systematized them within the context of the Protestant Reformation.
View of Knowledge: All three thinkers emphasize a form of enlightenment or divine revelation as the true path to understanding reality.
Ethics and Human Nature: There’s a shared pessimism about human nature’s inherent goodness without external (philosophical or divine) guidance, leading to structured societal and personal ethics.
In summary, the link between Plato, Augustine, and Calvin is one of philosophical and theological evolution, where foundational Platonic ideas are adapted into Christian theology by Augustine, and then further shaped by Calvin into a distinct Protestant theology, influencing Western thought on ethics, governance, and the nature of humanity.
How does this contrast to historical christianity?
The ideas of Plato, Augustine, and Calvin, while influential, contrast with various aspects of historical Christianity in several ways:
- Philosophical Integration:
Historical Christianity: Early Christianity, especially in its apostolic and post-apostolic forms, was more focused on the teachings of Jesus Christ, the apostles, and the early church fathers. While there was engagement with Greek philosophy (notably through early apologists like Justin Martyr), these interactions were often to defend Christian doctrine rather than integrate philosophical systems like Platonism wholesale.
Plato, Augustine, Calvin: These thinkers systematically incorporated philosophical concepts into Christian theology. Augustine, for example, used Neoplatonism to articulate Christian doctrines, while Calvin’s theology was deeply shaped by Augustinian thought, emphasizing philosophical rigor in theology. - View of Human Nature:
Historical Christianity: Early Christian teachings often emphasized human free will, redemption through faith, and the possibility of moral transformation through Christ. The early church fathers like Irenaeus and Origen had more optimistic views about human potential for good.
Plato, Augustine, Calvin: There’s a more pessimistic view of human nature. Augustine introduced the concept of original sin, which became more pronounced in Calvin’s doctrine of total depravity, where human beings are seen as utterly incapable of good without divine intervention. - Predestination:
Historical Christianity: Early Christian theology, as seen in the writings of some church fathers, while acknowledging God’s omniscience, often leaned towards a view where human choice played a significant role in salvation (though interpretations varied).
Calvin: His doctrine of predestination, heavily influenced by Augustine, posits that God predetermines who will be saved, regardless of human actions, contrasting with earlier, more synergistic views of salvation. - Role of Grace and Works:
Historical Christianity: There was a tension between grace and works, with some early teachings promoting the necessity of good works as a response to grace, not as a means to earn salvation (e.g., James 2:26).
Augustine, Calvin: They emphasized grace over works to an extreme, with Calvin’s theology particularly highlighting salvation by grace alone, through faith, thus diminishing the role of human works to a response rather than a contributor to salvation. - Ecclesiastical Structure:
Historical Christianity: Early Christianity varied from the more egalitarian house churches to the emerging hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church. However, the idea of a theocratic state was not universally accepted.
Calvin: He envisioned and implemented in Geneva a model where church and state were closely intertwined, with a strict adherence to his interpretation of Christian law, which can be seen as a more direct application of Platonic ideas of philosopher-kings into Christian governance. - Knowledge and Revelation:
Historical Christianity: Emphasis was often on divine revelation through scripture, tradition, and personal experience, with philosophy as a tool but not the foundation of faith.
Plato, Augustine, Calvin: There’s a more pronounced integration where philosophical reasoning about God, the soul, and ethics sometimes becomes foundational to understanding Christian doctrine.
In summary, while Plato, Augustine, and Calvin have profoundly shaped Christian thought, their integration of philosophy into theology, their views on human nature, predestination, the role of grace versus works, and the structure of church and state contrasta with some aspects of early Christian teachings, which were often more focused on apostolic tradition and less on philosophical systematization.
Summarize
The ideas of Plato, Augustine, and Calvin contrast with historical Christianity in:
Philosophical Integration: Early Christianity was less about integrating Greek philosophy and more about defending Christian doctrine, whereas these thinkers used philosophy to shape theology.
Human Nature: Early Christian views were more optimistic about human potential for good, while Augustine and Calvin introduced or emphasized original sin and total depravity.
Predestination: Calvin’s doctrine of predestination contrasts with earlier Christian thought, which often emphasized human choice in salvation.
Grace vs. Works: Historical Christianity balanced grace and works, but Augustine and Calvin leaned heavily towards salvation by grace alone, reducing the role of human effort.
Ecclesiastical Structure: Early Christian practices varied, but Calvin’s vision of a theocratic state was a significant departure, influenced by Platonic governance ideals.
Knowledge and Revelation: Early Christianity relied on scripture and divine revelation, while the trio also built upon philosophical reasoning to understand Christian truths.
Overall, these thinkers’ approaches represent a philosophical and theological evolution that sometimes diverges from the more straightforward scriptural interpretations of early Christianity.
Which Bible verses best show this difference?
Several Bible verses explicitly address the distinction between thoughts and actions, particularly in terms of sin and morality. Here are some key verses that illustrate this concept:
Matthew 5:27-28 – Jesus speaks on adultery, extending its definition from physical action to thought:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
This passage highlights that sin isn’t just about the act but also about the intent or thought behind it.
Proverbs 23:7:
“For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he…”
This verse underlines the idea that our thoughts shape who we are, suggesting a deep connection between thought and character or action.
James 1:14-15:
“But each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”
Here, the progression from thought (desire) to action (sin) is clearly outlined, emphasizing how thoughts can lead to sinful behaviors.
1 John 3:18:
“Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.”
Although not directly about sin, this verse underscores the importance of actions over mere thoughts or words in demonstrating love, implying a similar principle for sin.
Romans 7:15-20:
Paul discusses the struggle between what he wants to do (good) and what he actually does (sin), revealing the internal conflict between thought and action:
“I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.”
This passage shows the complexity of human nature where intentions (thoughts) and deeds (actions) can be at odds.
Mark 7:20-23:
“He went on: ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.’”
Jesus here points out that the source of sin begins in the heart (thoughts) before manifesting in actions.
These verses together paint a picture of how the Bible views the interplay between thoughts and actions, with a clear emphasis on the moral accountability for both.
How does the Orthodox Church view Calvinism and Calvin?
The Eastern Orthodox Church’s view on Calvinism and John Calvin can be summarized through several key points based on theological differences and historical interactions:
- Theological Opposition to Calvinism:
- Predestination: The Orthodox Church fundamentally disagrees with Calvin’s doctrine of double predestination, where God elects some to salvation and others to damnation. Instead, the Orthodox emphasize synergy, the cooperative nature of salvation where humans must freely choose to cooperate with God’s grace. This is rooted in the belief that while God foreknows, He does not predetermine human choices in such a manner.
- Original Sin: Calvin’s view of total depravity due to original sin is not accepted by Orthodoxy. The Orthodox understanding is that Adam’s sin affected humanity by introducing death and corruption but did not make humans completely incapable of good or of choosing God.
- Sacramental Theology: The Orthodox view the sacraments (or mysteries) as vehicles of grace in a way that differs from Calvin’s sacramental theology, particularly his views on the Eucharist, where he held a position that was neither fully symbolic nor one of real presence in the Catholic sense.
- Iconography: Calvin’s iconoclasm (opposition to religious images) stands in stark contrast to Orthodox veneration of icons, which is seen as a theological necessity affirming the Incarnation of Christ and the possibility of depicting the divine in human form.
- Historical Context and Responses:
- Synod of Jerusalem (1672): The Orthodox Church’s most formal response to Calvinism came in the form of the Confession of Dositheus at the Synod of Jerusalem, which explicitly rejected Calvinist doctrines, particularly predestination, and affirmed Orthodox teachings. This document is often cited as a formal condemnation of Calvinism.
- Patriarch Cyril Lucaris: There was a brief period where Cyril Lucaris, the Patriarch of Constantinople, seemed to align with Calvinistic views, but this was later repudiated by the broader Orthodox community, leading to the formal Synodal response.
- Perception of John Calvin:
- Calvin is often seen as a significant figure in the Reformation but not in a positive light within Orthodoxy. His theological innovations are viewed as deviations from the Apostolic and Patristic tradition. His approach to theology, especially his reliance on Augustine’s views, is critiqued for not respecting the consensus of the Church Fathers.
- Cultural and Social Impact:
In summary, the Orthodox Church views Calvinism as a theological deviation from what it considers to be the authentic Apostolic tradition, with specific criticism directed at Calvin’s soteriology, sacramental theology, and ecclesiology. John Calvin himself is not celebrated but rather critiqued for his theological positions that diverged from the Orthodox understanding of Christianity.
Does Calvinism present a view of the nature of God that is different to historical Christianity?
Yes, Calvinism, particularly through its distinctive doctrines, does present a view of the nature of God that differs in some significant ways from what is considered “historical Christianity” in the broader sense, though interpretations and emphases can vary widely even within historical Christianity:
Predestination and Sovereignty:
Calvinism: Emphasizes God’s absolute sovereignty, particularly through the doctrine of double predestination. This means God predestines some individuals to salvation (the elect) and others to damnation, with no role for human free will in the final outcome. Calvinists argue this underscores God’s total control over all things, including human destiny.
Historical Christianity: While predestination is discussed in Christian theology, especially in Augustine, the concept of double predestination as formulated by Calvin is not universally accepted. Many historical Christian traditions (like Eastern Orthodoxy, parts of Roman Catholicism, and some Protestant denominations) emphasize human free will and the cooperative nature of salvation (synergy) alongside divine grace.
Total Depravity:
Calvinism: Asserts a very strong view of total depravity, where humanity is completely unable to choose or do good apart from God’s irresistible grace. This leads to the notion that humans are so corrupted by sin that they cannot even seek God without divine intervention.
Historical Christianity: While the concept of original sin and human fallenness is central, not all traditions interpret this as total inability to respond to God. There’s a spectrum of thought; for example, the Orthodox Church sees humans as affected by Adam’s sin but not utterly depraved, capable of some good with God’s grace.
Grace and Salvation:
Calvinism: Adheres to the concept of “irresistible grace,” where those whom God has elected to save cannot resist His grace; it will lead them to salvation. Also, “perseverance of the saints” (once saved, always saved) is a hallmark, suggesting that those truly saved will persevere in faith until the end.
Historical Christianity: The idea of grace being necessary for salvation is widespread, but the nature of this grace varies. Many traditions do not subscribe to the Calvinist view of irresistible grace or might emphasize the possibility of falling away from faith (conditional security).
The Nature of God’s Love and Justice:
Calvinism: Can be seen as presenting a view where God’s love is particular to the elect, and His justice is demonstrated through the damnation of the non-elect, according to His sovereign will. This has led to debates about whether this view makes God’s love seem less universal or unconditional.
Historical Christianity: Often emphasizes God’s love for all humanity (e.g., “God so loved the world” in John 3:16), with justice understood in the context of human freedom and responsibility. The tension between divine love and justice is navigated differently, often with a greater emphasis on human agency.
Scriptural Interpretation:
Calvinism: Tends to interpret certain scriptures in ways that reinforce its doctrines, sometimes leading to a more deterministic reading of biblical texts.
Historical Christianity: Scripture is interpreted across a broad spectrum, but many traditions allow for a more synergistic view where God’s sovereignty works in concert with human will.
In essence, Calvinism introduces or accentuates certain theological positions that contrast with interpretations in other branches of historical Christianity, particularly regarding God’s sovereignty, human free will, and the nature of grace and salvation. These differences have led to significant theological debates and schisms within Christianity.
If two things have different natures can they be the same?
If two things have fundamentally different natures, they cannot be considered the same in essence or identity. Here’s why:
Nature or Essence: The “nature” or “essence” of something defines what it inherently is. For example, the nature of water is to be H₂O, transparent, liquid at room temperature, etc. If something else has a different nature, say, the properties of oil, they cannot be the same because their fundamental characteristics differ.
Philosophical Perspective:
Identity: In philosophy, identity is often discussed in terms of the principle of identity (“A is A”) and the law of non-contradiction (something cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same respect). If two things differ in nature, they cannot share the same identity.
Leibniz’s Law: Also known as the Identity of Indiscernibles, this principle states that if two things are identical, they must share all their properties. Therefore, if two things have different natures, they cannot be identical according to this law.
Practical and Scientific Examples:
Chemistry: Oxygen and Nitrogen are different elements with different chemical properties and behaviors; thus, they cannot be considered the same.
Biology: A dog and a cat, while both animals, have different natures in terms of genetics, behavior, and physical characteristics, precluding them from being the same species or even the same individual.
Metaphysical Considerations:
Even in metaphysical discussions where one might explore the idea of “sameness” beyond the physical (like in discussions of the soul or essence in spiritual contexts), if two entities have fundamentally different natures, they would still be considered distinct. For instance, in many religious or philosophical frameworks, humans and divine beings are seen as having different essences.
However, there are nuances:
Qualitative vs. Numerical Identity: Two things might share the same nature in a qualitative sense (e.g., both are chairs) but not be numerically identical (they are separate objects). Here, “same” could apply to their type or category but not to their individual identity.
Transformation: If one thing changes its nature through some process (think of chemical reactions where one substance becomes another), there’s a philosophical debate about whether it’s still the “same” thing or if it has become something else entirely.
In conclusion, if two things have different natures, they cannot be the same in terms of identity, essence, or fundamental characteristics. However, they might share some commonalities or be classified under broader categories where “same” could apply in a more abstract or categorical sense.
Leave a Reply