Like Aquinas, Calvin links faith and reason, but he does it in a very different way. What do you see as the main differences between Calvin's approach and that of Aquinas? How do you account for the fact that these two men--both of them brilliant, thoroughly grounded in scripture, and committed to truth--came to such different conclusions on so many issues? Or is it possible that they don't differ as much as one might think?
Reading through both, the main big difference I see between them is their idea on atonement. Calvin believed that atonement is only reserved or limited for the elect, or those that were given to Christ specifically by God the Father, and that Christ only died for the elect, not everyone, whereas Aquias believed that atonement was God's solution two the issues of past and future sin, humans live in constant sin, which damns humanity to hell unless they are restored by God's punishment and restored.
ReplyDeleteI think these two came to different conclusions because they were trying to write things that would cause the people that read this at the time to make sure they were right with God before they passed away.
For me, this is quite the question regarding early church thinkers. I would say Aquinas is one of my favorites, while Calvin is one of my least favorites. First, I will address their similarities as both men were firmly rooted in obtaining truth. While Aquinas relied upon reason and faith, Calvin claimed to rely on the holy spirit alone. I feel this was one of the few ways these men came to the cross, and the idea is that they both sought to bring structure to the Church as it was in their day.
ReplyDeleteFrom there, though, these two men start to separate themselves in their presentation and thought processes. I would say that Aquinas held many of the fruits of the spirit in his writings. I defend this claim by presenting Aquinas's loving and relationship demeanor when addressing God and his ability to have peace and faithfulness when approaching how God viewed us humans. While in contrast, I would say Calvin suffered from something that is a more modern term which is Church hurt. I think flooded throughout his writings are examples of things that he may view one way or another based on prior bad experiences with the Church. Church hurt ultimately impacted Calvin's writings and teaching, which removed many of the fruits of the spirit, as discussed in Galatians 5:22-23.
Based on my claim that they were two entirely different minds while also pursuers of truth, I will provide an example from a subject they both reasoned with. One is Calvin saw man as utterly corrupt due to original sin and cannot even come to choose God under our power. While this is true in some sense, Aquinas's stance is much closer to my truth. Aquinas viewed that the origin of sin entirely corrupts us, but our nature was still bent toward good. Aquinas's interpretation leaves more room for humans to have valid free will. Free will is something I find to believe that we all have while God has a desired will in our lives; I know genuinely we can venture from that will in our lives. See, here is why I say that Aquinas holds to the fruits of the spirit. He recognizes our brokenness as needed; however, unlike Calvin, he does not think our brokenness defines us. In Calvin's opinion, we are broken and either saved by God or will never find our way. In one sense, this is a true statement, but by that very statement, Calvin cannot believe in free will. Without free will, there would be no need for Paul to address the fruits of the spirit vs. the actions of flesh. So in the inerrancy of scripture and the defining of the holy spirit by Paul himself, Calvin's claims against free will must be a fallacy. God gives us his spirit, and it is for us to choose the path that the spirit brings us, but we as humans have a choice to make, which is that of spirit or flesh.
Tanner Simon