Probably not the correct place to leave this comment, but I was listening to the continental philosophy podcast series and thought I would leave some feedback as requested with respect to Hegal, Aquinas and Calvin and the modern state. I'm not an expert in theology or history, but I have an okay understanding from different perspectives. I'm not sure how much of what I write will tie into what you are doing and your general thesis. But here are just some ideas and thoughts.
1) Hegal
I haven't looked at him in over a decade, I somewhat started reviewing him again. A quick point that I want to bring up is that many people (not you) but others present Hegal as though the dialectics always have to be some like black and white contradiction, but I don't remember Hegal necessarily doing this. There is usually more common ground than people acknowledge. Also, I don't think it always has to be a triad. I could be wrong.
2) Aquinas/Calvin :Main points (big picture)
I think to have a meaningful conversation with Aquinas in terms of the political, you might want to mention Augustine and Pelagianism because a lot of things are downstream from that in terms of both theological and political. Also, the Augustine/Calvin/Luther axiom that you need to belief -> understanding vs. the Greek/scholastics/Aquinas understanding -> belief is really important because it influences our causal reasoning in terms of belief itself as well as how we process information. It yields different results both theologically and politically, which resonates in different philosophical schools.Well meaning Catholics tend to miss this point.
I wrote this up the following a month or 2 ago to educate people on the different perspectives. I'm sure you probably know either most or all of it, but maybe there is something here of use to the discussion.
reformation was going to happen independent of any of the Reformers because the tension was built into the church. St. Augustine, the most influential saint in the church , wrote two doctrines that given enough time and entropy would find themselves in conflict with one another. These doctrines are commonly known as his doctrine of the church and his doctrine of grace. Roman Catholics would argue his doctrine of the church and Protestants would argue his doctrine of grace. Luther, Calvin and the new Pope are all Augustinian in terms of their framework. Causality is difficult to determine, but I would say to understand this topic, you have to understand Augustine because he has an outsized impact on the Western mind.
1. Augustine (relevant points not exhaustive)
Augustine was a brilliant pagan who was a master at rhetoric, logic, and developed a philosophy of history (Hegal jumps on this) and he thought about causality. He was very well versed in philosophy and was associated with different philosophical/religious schools like Manichaeism and Neoplatonism. Eventually, he had a conversion experience and realized that although he was educated in different strains of thought he eventually concluded that you need belief prior to understanding (this is a very very important point) and philosophy was less important than the Bible ( also a very important point).
The second key point with relation to the topic at hand is his debate with a man known as Pelagius, who most believe he was a British monk. Pelagius had a coherent theory influenced by Greek philosophical thought with these approximate points:
1) Everyone is born neutral with regards to good and evil choices (like blank slate, first proposed by Aristole).
2) We have the capability of doing both good and bad and equal capability of doing either.
3) Adam sin doesn't affect us (has nothing to do with me).
Pelagius was using Greek philosophy in terms of his framework to interpret the Bible. Superficially, it may not seem off, but a more careful reading will show you it's deeply problematic. Augustine correctly recognized this and stated the need to evaluate this with respect to the Biblical text. He outlines the 4 steps or states of redemption.
State 1: Before the fall, humans had the ability to do good and evil.
State 2: After the fall, Adam and his descendents lost the ability to not want to sin. Even when we try our best, eventually we will sin again.
State 3: When our hearts are redeemed, we have the ability to choose evil and good to a similar capacity before the fall but not in the same capacity because sin has entered the world (very important point).
State 4: In the resurrected state, we lose the ability to choose evil or sin.
Pelagianism was rightly defined as a heresy and but this chain of thought will come up again and again, particularly in the reformation and the modern liberal state. I can spend a stupid amount of time talking about why this is wrong but one take away I want to make is Pelagianism is essentially arguing you can separate cause and effect because the underlying assumption is that your desire and will is neutral ( I would argue an unbiblical belief) and that there are no factors that influence it. This is going to be a strong distinction between Catholic thought and Protestant thought, particularly reformed thought (which is very important in terms of the US later on).
But suffice to say most Continental European thought is semi-Pelagian to Pelagian to various degrees where traditional American thought is semi-Pelagian (seen in some modern Evangelicals) to anti-Pelagain (Reformed/Puritan thought). Many of the US founders had an anti-Pelagain framework with some notable exceptions like Jefferson and Patrick Henery. Puritan Jonathan Edward wrote a very important book called Freedom of the Will, which is one of the most anti-Pelagain works of all time that goes against the semi-Pelagianism that was popular in England at the time.
To contrast to Europe, France became essentially Pelagian partly due to the politics and teachings of a group called the scholastics, which I will write about below in point 2. This is how you get someone like Rosseua. Rousseau like all modern liberals is a Pelagian, he insists on the innate goodness of the will, rejects that Adam sin is imputed on humanity and advocates for human perfectability (sinlessness). From this logic, if evil exists in the world, it's because the environment and civilization is evil because the will is GOOD. Therefore, we need to destroy the environment and civilization. (enter Marx with a similar belief).
The scholastics (there were many) were individuals who were basically academics/ university professors who worked for the Roman Catholic Church and were enamored with philosophy which was also known as reason. They lived during the rise of the university system and some of them exhibited a lot of the issues you see today with academia. To understand how scholasticism gets out of hand, we need to do a quick backstory. At the University of Paris , Siger de Brabant started teaching things that were considered unbiblical. When he was asked to explain himself, he gave this bs theory developed by a Averros that stated basically a proposition could be true in philosophy and the contradictory proposition could be true in theology. With this "theory", he could not be accused of being a heretic. Another way to describe what he did is called lying or double speak. Aquinas hated this as well as the various positions people were taking so he wanted to create a new way forward. He really wanted to find a way to incorporate
Aristole's (the science) thinking into the church and bible. This was a noble, but flawed project. Over time (after Aquinas), the scholastics became seriously out of touch and degraded both spiritually and academically in a similar capacity to the modern academic framework and this was a serious catalyst to the reformation, not just the Renaissance. St. Thomas Aquinas, like most scholastics, gets some stuff really right and some stuff deeply wrong (I say this as someone who likes St. Aquinas). Further, some stuff from Aristole is very good and had no issues being incorporated into Christianity and its philosophy (like the law of noncontradiction), but some of his ideas are very problematic from a orthodox Christian perspective. For example, delayed hominization is the belief that the soul isn't fully formed until ~45 days for boys and ~80/90 days (early second trimester) for girls; implications of this belief were that early term abortion wasn't an abnormal sin). This belief is 100% Aristotelian and O% biblical and yet Aquinas and one of the Pope's endorsed it because it was "the science". Augustine had a similar weird belief that was left over from Greek philosophy. Luther and Calvin rejected it based on biblical teachings and so did other church fathers like Gregory of Nyssa for the same reason.
Prior to the scholastics, the teaching from Augustine mentioned above was you need belief prior to understanding, but the scholastics reversed the order to we must understand to believe (understanding yields belief). Aquinas goes on to teach that faith and reason are essentially psychologically incompatible, so he essentially splits it. Eventually, faith is fundamentally founded on reason/philosophy (it sounds counterintuitive, but this is deeply wrong because belief in God specifically is a properly basic belief (meaning a core belief that is needed to infer other truths and is rationally warranted)). Reformed thinker Alvin Plantingua cements this idea, but the core idea comes from Calvin's framework. Total speculation on my part, but I think this is why Carlyle never went into anything about Jesus in his series on Heros and Hero Worship because belief in Christ is properly basic (term didn't exist, but the concept did).
In terms of the specific tenets, I would say the scholastics tried to synthesize these Greek ideas below with the bible, not just science (where a select few may have a place after some serious modification). You will see a direct line from these thoughts to the cult of reason during the French Revolution ( the French Revolution had a strong streak of classical Greek philosophy imo). Sidenote, the scholastics in France were particularly corrupt and helped bring about the French Revolution by creating distrust in institutions (but that is another long tangent). This will make Calvin make more sense.
Greek Tenets
1. Knowledge of man and nature is obtained by observation only. Must use reason. Essentially empiricism.
2. The meaning of human life is exclusively founded on the power of observation and reason to impose a logical order on the inherently meaningless facts of man's existence. You impose your own meaning in life.
3. Since all knowledge of nature and man is obtained by observation and reason and since meaning in nature is that usefulness reason finds in things no ultimate meaning or purpose for the non rational parts of life . Nothing has meaning beyond how it can be useful to you (cough Bentham). No purpose, plan or goal.
4. The goal of man must either be cynicism, sarcasm or flight into the void of meaninglessness via mysticism.
Overall, the scholastics failed to realize at a fundamental level Christians and non Christians have different axioms, frameworks and tenets, so they will think differently. Further, they failed to understand that interpretation of the world, reasoning about life and developing a philosophical conviction is done by humans and not robots therefore personal qualities and factors like attitudes, will (again the will is not neutral), desires, goals will be operative in any expression of opinion, any line of reasoning and any worldview.
The religious wars of the 1500s were insanely violent on both sides of the conflict and I don't think any sane person wishes to relive them. Having said all that, I want to take a moment to explain how John Calvin's theological perspective connects the past and the modern age and why many Americans resonate with his beliefs. Again, I don't agree with all his actions or support all his beliefs, but I think people with a cursory understanding of him don't realize how influential he actually is or how strong his positions generally are in a variety of topics. I'm going to briefly address some points made related to him and show how he tied together the previous points mentioned above.
Institutes of the Christian Religion + Other Writings
Calvin was a legitimate genius and one of the best exegesis of all time, even people who strongly disagree with him generally agree to that proposition. I know academics/theologians of all different types reach for his commentaries because he is that influential of a thinker. He studied various subjects and by most accounts, it seems like he just wanted to be an academic as he knew French, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, the Bible, Law, Logic Philosophy and History. Again, comparing him to St. Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas did not know Hebrew or Greek, which were the languages the old and new testament were written in.
The first book he wrote was a secular commentary on Seneca De Clementia published ~1532. One main point to take away from this work is that he becomes sympathetic to his argument on clemency and rethinks how public executions should be handled. This view was also impacted by personal experience he had some years prior when an older man who was part of the group known as the Gospelers (a group of people who were sympathetic to Luther's message in France) accosted him walking home from studying (he was always studying) and asked him had he heard of the Lord's free gift. This freaked him out and about a week later he saw the guy burned at the stake and it stayed with him (he was still Roman Catholic at this point). I will touch on Michael Servetus later, but this is one reason why he asked for him to be beheaded instead of burned at the stake. He viewed it as an act of mercy. Again, this is the 1500s.
In 1536, he wrote the first edition Institutes of the Christian Religion (one of the most influential books of all time) as an anon, which really reads as a blog (I haven't read through the whole thing, but this was my impression as well as others). This is the first thing that I think makes him feel modern.It is a very well written document that teaches you how to live a Christian life and goes into detail about Protestant theology. It spreads pretty rapidly and people liked his writing style as well as his content. Again, comparing him to the scholastic style of Aquinas, he doesn't have a doctrine of God (meaning proofs for God) because God is a given (properly basic belief). Instead he focuses on our knowledge of God and how we get to know God and be in a proper relationship with him. God is personal, not an abstract proposition. This is why there is a decent section on pastoral care, which really develops after he leaves Geneva (he revised the Institutes).For example, he was big in visiting those who had the plague even when it was forbidden (cough COVID). Fundamentally, Calvin brings us back to Augustine's view of belief -> understand, which was one reason why historically Protestant countries were successful on average. The way they think about belief, sincerity, integrity and participation is functionally different, so much so that years later we have a whole statistic based off belief.
This brings me to my next point in general about his writing and what makes him modern. His writings are generally considered some of the most persuasive and trolling diatribes against blind worship of philosophy, unchallenged expertise/credentialism and church corruption. Like Augustine, Calvin calls in to question various philosophical systems and ultimately concludes philosophy is just the history of human wisdom’s attempt to search out answers to the questions of human existence. Thus, philosophers and their theories become paradigms for consideration, rather than structures for the organization of thought. So, when he starts his systematic theology, he systematizes the Bible by the Bible instead of by Greek philosophy. Further, philosophy must be understood as part of his humanism, rather than a tool of the coherence of systematization of his thought. This is a mistake many modern people make, as they think you can create a philosophy that replaces scripture (enter Darwin, Rand and Nitzsche). He was very good at challenging the expert class that came in love with their own philosophical work at the expense of scripture and society. This is Calvin at his best and I think it is what resonates with a lot of people. In response to both Luther as well as this book, the order of the Jesuits was created officially in 1540 (unofficially started as a response to Luther in 1534). They eventually come up with a theory called Monism, but that categorically collapses back into Calvinism.
There is so much going on here at this time period. Geneva was originally run by the duchy of Savory with the bishop as the temporal authority. All the bishops going back like 80 years prior were either family members of the bishop or in his pocket and deeply corrupt. Important players in the city made an alliance with the city of Bern who had a decent military and some wealth. This works and the Swiss Reformers win and the Catholics lose (remember this is essentially a war). The Reformers hire a bombastic man named Farrell who essentially guilts Calvin to stay in Geneva ( he stopped there because he was on his way to another city and had zero interest in getting involved). In addition to the disgruntled Catholics who lost power, another political group known as the Libertines were trying to take power (some where previously in power as they came from influential families). They claimed that they were elect, so therefore they were able to engage in all sorts of debauchery (this isn't how election works and is unbiblical; also I think they were lying atheist because many were essentially proto anarcho-, libertarians similar to the French Revolution). They create a red light district where a bunch of stuff goes down and also recruit people from all over to Europe to move into Geneva. Rosseua loved these people. This all happens around the time Calvin enters.The situation there was closer to today where people ignored the slippery slope for years and then you got an overreaction slash making of the French Revolution. Some other quick notes about this time period not mentioned in the video series. In theory, the previous bishop had a greater enforcement mechanism than the consistory (again product of the time) although he didn't use it in the same manner; in general, the Inquisitions had less power than the consistory imo. Also, there is controversy on some of the claims so people are actually going through the archives again because some parts of the story aren't kosher.Having said that, it was still the 1500s and they ran the city similar to the Puritan structure and although he wasn't a citizen he did have influence.
Michael Servetus
Michael was a polymath who had a heretical view on the Trinity. He published his first work on the Trinity and then became a renowned doctor. At some point he reads the institutes and decides to contact Calvin. They correspond for many years and at one point Calvin sneaks into France ( at the risk of being killed ) to meet with him and he doesn't show up. Eventually, their correspondence sours and Calvin eventually cuts him off. In 1553, he published a serious Anti-Trinitarian work and attacked John Calvin.I believe Calvin sent his book to the French authorities where he is then arrested him for Heresy and sentenced to burn slowly at the stake. Calvin can be a snob and a prick, but he didn't turn him in because he was talking crap about him (this is the modern interpretation), he turned him in because Arianism was a serious offense in his worldview. Also, on a technical note (I'm not going to get too into the weeds), but many intelligent people argue Arianism collapses the Christian religion because it put Jesus on the creature side of creation. This is a strong argument (not sure if I agree with it), but I acknowledge it exists. As a modern person, I still think Arianism is technically incorrect and I think you would still be a Christian, just confused; but again we are dealing with the 1500s.Both Calvin and the Catholics church knew this, which is why he would have been put to death no matter where he went.Michael also had a relationship with the Libertines that I never really figured out. But they basically help him escape to Geneva. In previous correspondences, Calvin tells him not to come there because he will be arrested. He goes there and gets arrested. One point people neglect t is that the actual prosecutor of the trial wasn't Calvin, but Claude Rigot, who was part of the Libertines and one of Calvin's enemies. Calvin's connection to the trial was basically as a technician. Sidenote, but I think Michael got tricked by the Libertines. My conspiracy is that Micheal was a patsy, but that is another story.
End of life and legacy
Calvin was a prolific pastor who people from all over the world would come to see. He established multiple schools that children could attend whether they could pay or not. He established hospitals and places for the poor. He also established multiple doctrines including work on the Trinity (which was neglected and is important for understanding how Protestant communities are set up even non Reformed) and the signs of how to determine a church. He didn't "invent" unconditional election or predestination as other church fathers had this view and more importantly it is a plausible interpretation of the bible. Thomas Aquinas had his interpretation of double predestination ( I think double predestination isn't correct, but I get where people get there). Further, I would say all Christians believe in some form of predestination (this is a long conversation) because it's implicit in the old testament and explicit in the new. Reform minded people are just sticklers when it comes to definition in terms where other people are less strict with language (you see this in the Puritans).
Finally, I'm going to spend a minute on the doctrine of total depravity because this ties everything together. This doctrine states
that sin affects every facet of our nature. It does not mean that sinners are as bad as they possibly can be or that any one person is as bad as he possibly can be. This is straight from the Bible and I don't see how anyone works around this. But on a technical note, if you hold the Catholic view from Aquinas that sin just wounds human nature, you are basically stating again a neutral will and you separate cause and effect. Total depravity got condemned as a heresy and Jansenism (they had similar ideas to the reform theology in terms of the doctrine of grace within the Catholic Church) also got condemned. These views are basically infallibly condemned in the Catholic Church like some Protestant churches become semi-Pelagian, again meaning you separate cause and effect in practical terms (it gets into free will but that's another really long conversation). This is important because separating cause and effect infects the modern mind. Also, there is a misunderstanding on how traditional Reformed communities excelled, particularly at the local level.It comes down to that you are fundamentally responsible for your actions, not the environment because you reject Pelagianism - full stop. This is where the WASP work ethic really comes out of (Lutherans have it too as they accept total depravity). Total depravity is a presumpositional framework for understanding the US Constitution, revolutionary war, and the federalist papers. Modern Liberalism is just a form of Pelagianism and you can find it on the right and the left.
I'm not as well versed in Luther, but yeah hopefully this helps.
FORGIVE my COUGHING and rough sounding voice - I'm on the MEND but I am still shaking off this damned VIRUS.
HUGE thanx to the Fellas for including me in this BRAND/SERIES - esp on grounds I couldn't deliver on a proper 'STREAM yesterday.
Thomas brings the fire once again
Inside Thomas there is both a UN diplomat and an Aryan Brotherhood gangster.
AWSUM
Thank you
Well well well
Probably not the correct place to leave this comment, but I was listening to the continental philosophy podcast series and thought I would leave some feedback as requested with respect to Hegal, Aquinas and Calvin and the modern state. I'm not an expert in theology or history, but I have an okay understanding from different perspectives. I'm not sure how much of what I write will tie into what you are doing and your general thesis. But here are just some ideas and thoughts.
1) Hegal
I haven't looked at him in over a decade, I somewhat started reviewing him again. A quick point that I want to bring up is that many people (not you) but others present Hegal as though the dialectics always have to be some like black and white contradiction, but I don't remember Hegal necessarily doing this. There is usually more common ground than people acknowledge. Also, I don't think it always has to be a triad. I could be wrong.
2) Aquinas/Calvin :Main points (big picture)
I think to have a meaningful conversation with Aquinas in terms of the political, you might want to mention Augustine and Pelagianism because a lot of things are downstream from that in terms of both theological and political. Also, the Augustine/Calvin/Luther axiom that you need to belief -> understanding vs. the Greek/scholastics/Aquinas understanding -> belief is really important because it influences our causal reasoning in terms of belief itself as well as how we process information. It yields different results both theologically and politically, which resonates in different philosophical schools.Well meaning Catholics tend to miss this point.
I wrote this up the following a month or 2 ago to educate people on the different perspectives. I'm sure you probably know either most or all of it, but maybe there is something here of use to the discussion.
Tabling politics aside, the
reformation was going to happen independent of any of the Reformers because the tension was built into the church. St. Augustine, the most influential saint in the church , wrote two doctrines that given enough time and entropy would find themselves in conflict with one another. These doctrines are commonly known as his doctrine of the church and his doctrine of grace. Roman Catholics would argue his doctrine of the church and Protestants would argue his doctrine of grace. Luther, Calvin and the new Pope are all Augustinian in terms of their framework. Causality is difficult to determine, but I would say to understand this topic, you have to understand Augustine because he has an outsized impact on the Western mind.
1. Augustine (relevant points not exhaustive)
Augustine was a brilliant pagan who was a master at rhetoric, logic, and developed a philosophy of history (Hegal jumps on this) and he thought about causality. He was very well versed in philosophy and was associated with different philosophical/religious schools like Manichaeism and Neoplatonism. Eventually, he had a conversion experience and realized that although he was educated in different strains of thought he eventually concluded that you need belief prior to understanding (this is a very very important point) and philosophy was less important than the Bible ( also a very important point).
The second key point with relation to the topic at hand is his debate with a man known as Pelagius, who most believe he was a British monk. Pelagius had a coherent theory influenced by Greek philosophical thought with these approximate points:
1) Everyone is born neutral with regards to good and evil choices (like blank slate, first proposed by Aristole).
2) We have the capability of doing both good and bad and equal capability of doing either.
3) Adam sin doesn't affect us (has nothing to do with me).
Pelagius was using Greek philosophy in terms of his framework to interpret the Bible. Superficially, it may not seem off, but a more careful reading will show you it's deeply problematic. Augustine correctly recognized this and stated the need to evaluate this with respect to the Biblical text. He outlines the 4 steps or states of redemption.
State 1: Before the fall, humans had the ability to do good and evil.
State 2: After the fall, Adam and his descendents lost the ability to not want to sin. Even when we try our best, eventually we will sin again.
State 3: When our hearts are redeemed, we have the ability to choose evil and good to a similar capacity before the fall but not in the same capacity because sin has entered the world (very important point).
State 4: In the resurrected state, we lose the ability to choose evil or sin.
Pelagianism was rightly defined as a heresy and but this chain of thought will come up again and again, particularly in the reformation and the modern liberal state. I can spend a stupid amount of time talking about why this is wrong but one take away I want to make is Pelagianism is essentially arguing you can separate cause and effect because the underlying assumption is that your desire and will is neutral ( I would argue an unbiblical belief) and that there are no factors that influence it. This is going to be a strong distinction between Catholic thought and Protestant thought, particularly reformed thought (which is very important in terms of the US later on).
But suffice to say most Continental European thought is semi-Pelagian to Pelagian to various degrees where traditional American thought is semi-Pelagian (seen in some modern Evangelicals) to anti-Pelagain (Reformed/Puritan thought). Many of the US founders had an anti-Pelagain framework with some notable exceptions like Jefferson and Patrick Henery. Puritan Jonathan Edward wrote a very important book called Freedom of the Will, which is one of the most anti-Pelagain works of all time that goes against the semi-Pelagianism that was popular in England at the time.
To contrast to Europe, France became essentially Pelagian partly due to the politics and teachings of a group called the scholastics, which I will write about below in point 2. This is how you get someone like Rosseua. Rousseau like all modern liberals is a Pelagian, he insists on the innate goodness of the will, rejects that Adam sin is imputed on humanity and advocates for human perfectability (sinlessness). From this logic, if evil exists in the world, it's because the environment and civilization is evil because the will is GOOD. Therefore, we need to destroy the environment and civilization. (enter Marx with a similar belief).
2. Scholastics (the Medieval Age)
The scholastics (there were many) were individuals who were basically academics/ university professors who worked for the Roman Catholic Church and were enamored with philosophy which was also known as reason. They lived during the rise of the university system and some of them exhibited a lot of the issues you see today with academia. To understand how scholasticism gets out of hand, we need to do a quick backstory. At the University of Paris , Siger de Brabant started teaching things that were considered unbiblical. When he was asked to explain himself, he gave this bs theory developed by a Averros that stated basically a proposition could be true in philosophy and the contradictory proposition could be true in theology. With this "theory", he could not be accused of being a heretic. Another way to describe what he did is called lying or double speak. Aquinas hated this as well as the various positions people were taking so he wanted to create a new way forward. He really wanted to find a way to incorporate
Aristole's (the science) thinking into the church and bible. This was a noble, but flawed project. Over time (after Aquinas), the scholastics became seriously out of touch and degraded both spiritually and academically in a similar capacity to the modern academic framework and this was a serious catalyst to the reformation, not just the Renaissance. St. Thomas Aquinas, like most scholastics, gets some stuff really right and some stuff deeply wrong (I say this as someone who likes St. Aquinas). Further, some stuff from Aristole is very good and had no issues being incorporated into Christianity and its philosophy (like the law of noncontradiction), but some of his ideas are very problematic from a orthodox Christian perspective. For example, delayed hominization is the belief that the soul isn't fully formed until ~45 days for boys and ~80/90 days (early second trimester) for girls; implications of this belief were that early term abortion wasn't an abnormal sin). This belief is 100% Aristotelian and O% biblical and yet Aquinas and one of the Pope's endorsed it because it was "the science". Augustine had a similar weird belief that was left over from Greek philosophy. Luther and Calvin rejected it based on biblical teachings and so did other church fathers like Gregory of Nyssa for the same reason.
Prior to the scholastics, the teaching from Augustine mentioned above was you need belief prior to understanding, but the scholastics reversed the order to we must understand to believe (understanding yields belief). Aquinas goes on to teach that faith and reason are essentially psychologically incompatible, so he essentially splits it. Eventually, faith is fundamentally founded on reason/philosophy (it sounds counterintuitive, but this is deeply wrong because belief in God specifically is a properly basic belief (meaning a core belief that is needed to infer other truths and is rationally warranted)). Reformed thinker Alvin Plantingua cements this idea, but the core idea comes from Calvin's framework. Total speculation on my part, but I think this is why Carlyle never went into anything about Jesus in his series on Heros and Hero Worship because belief in Christ is properly basic (term didn't exist, but the concept did).
In terms of the specific tenets, I would say the scholastics tried to synthesize these Greek ideas below with the bible, not just science (where a select few may have a place after some serious modification). You will see a direct line from these thoughts to the cult of reason during the French Revolution ( the French Revolution had a strong streak of classical Greek philosophy imo). Sidenote, the scholastics in France were particularly corrupt and helped bring about the French Revolution by creating distrust in institutions (but that is another long tangent). This will make Calvin make more sense.
Greek Tenets
1. Knowledge of man and nature is obtained by observation only. Must use reason. Essentially empiricism.
2. The meaning of human life is exclusively founded on the power of observation and reason to impose a logical order on the inherently meaningless facts of man's existence. You impose your own meaning in life.
3. Since all knowledge of nature and man is obtained by observation and reason and since meaning in nature is that usefulness reason finds in things no ultimate meaning or purpose for the non rational parts of life . Nothing has meaning beyond how it can be useful to you (cough Bentham). No purpose, plan or goal.
4. The goal of man must either be cynicism, sarcasm or flight into the void of meaninglessness via mysticism.
Overall, the scholastics failed to realize at a fundamental level Christians and non Christians have different axioms, frameworks and tenets, so they will think differently. Further, they failed to understand that interpretation of the world, reasoning about life and developing a philosophical conviction is done by humans and not robots therefore personal qualities and factors like attitudes, will (again the will is not neutral), desires, goals will be operative in any expression of opinion, any line of reasoning and any worldview.
3) Calvin
The religious wars of the 1500s were insanely violent on both sides of the conflict and I don't think any sane person wishes to relive them. Having said all that, I want to take a moment to explain how John Calvin's theological perspective connects the past and the modern age and why many Americans resonate with his beliefs. Again, I don't agree with all his actions or support all his beliefs, but I think people with a cursory understanding of him don't realize how influential he actually is or how strong his positions generally are in a variety of topics. I'm going to briefly address some points made related to him and show how he tied together the previous points mentioned above.
Institutes of the Christian Religion + Other Writings
Calvin was a legitimate genius and one of the best exegesis of all time, even people who strongly disagree with him generally agree to that proposition. I know academics/theologians of all different types reach for his commentaries because he is that influential of a thinker. He studied various subjects and by most accounts, it seems like he just wanted to be an academic as he knew French, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, the Bible, Law, Logic Philosophy and History. Again, comparing him to St. Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas did not know Hebrew or Greek, which were the languages the old and new testament were written in.
The first book he wrote was a secular commentary on Seneca De Clementia published ~1532. One main point to take away from this work is that he becomes sympathetic to his argument on clemency and rethinks how public executions should be handled. This view was also impacted by personal experience he had some years prior when an older man who was part of the group known as the Gospelers (a group of people who were sympathetic to Luther's message in France) accosted him walking home from studying (he was always studying) and asked him had he heard of the Lord's free gift. This freaked him out and about a week later he saw the guy burned at the stake and it stayed with him (he was still Roman Catholic at this point). I will touch on Michael Servetus later, but this is one reason why he asked for him to be beheaded instead of burned at the stake. He viewed it as an act of mercy. Again, this is the 1500s.
In 1536, he wrote the first edition Institutes of the Christian Religion (one of the most influential books of all time) as an anon, which really reads as a blog (I haven't read through the whole thing, but this was my impression as well as others). This is the first thing that I think makes him feel modern.It is a very well written document that teaches you how to live a Christian life and goes into detail about Protestant theology. It spreads pretty rapidly and people liked his writing style as well as his content. Again, comparing him to the scholastic style of Aquinas, he doesn't have a doctrine of God (meaning proofs for God) because God is a given (properly basic belief). Instead he focuses on our knowledge of God and how we get to know God and be in a proper relationship with him. God is personal, not an abstract proposition. This is why there is a decent section on pastoral care, which really develops after he leaves Geneva (he revised the Institutes).For example, he was big in visiting those who had the plague even when it was forbidden (cough COVID). Fundamentally, Calvin brings us back to Augustine's view of belief -> understand, which was one reason why historically Protestant countries were successful on average. The way they think about belief, sincerity, integrity and participation is functionally different, so much so that years later we have a whole statistic based off belief.
This brings me to my next point in general about his writing and what makes him modern. His writings are generally considered some of the most persuasive and trolling diatribes against blind worship of philosophy, unchallenged expertise/credentialism and church corruption. Like Augustine, Calvin calls in to question various philosophical systems and ultimately concludes philosophy is just the history of human wisdom’s attempt to search out answers to the questions of human existence. Thus, philosophers and their theories become paradigms for consideration, rather than structures for the organization of thought. So, when he starts his systematic theology, he systematizes the Bible by the Bible instead of by Greek philosophy. Further, philosophy must be understood as part of his humanism, rather than a tool of the coherence of systematization of his thought. This is a mistake many modern people make, as they think you can create a philosophy that replaces scripture (enter Darwin, Rand and Nitzsche). He was very good at challenging the expert class that came in love with their own philosophical work at the expense of scripture and society. This is Calvin at his best and I think it is what resonates with a lot of people. In response to both Luther as well as this book, the order of the Jesuits was created officially in 1540 (unofficially started as a response to Luther in 1534). They eventually come up with a theory called Monism, but that categorically collapses back into Calvinism.
Molinism*
Calvin's Controversy (Geneva and Michael Serverus
He is going through the considtory documents again. Worth a listen if interested in that topic
https://youtu.be/tYD82piwFlI?si=ZnADGjue2hd-DjZ6
There is so much going on here at this time period. Geneva was originally run by the duchy of Savory with the bishop as the temporal authority. All the bishops going back like 80 years prior were either family members of the bishop or in his pocket and deeply corrupt. Important players in the city made an alliance with the city of Bern who had a decent military and some wealth. This works and the Swiss Reformers win and the Catholics lose (remember this is essentially a war). The Reformers hire a bombastic man named Farrell who essentially guilts Calvin to stay in Geneva ( he stopped there because he was on his way to another city and had zero interest in getting involved). In addition to the disgruntled Catholics who lost power, another political group known as the Libertines were trying to take power (some where previously in power as they came from influential families). They claimed that they were elect, so therefore they were able to engage in all sorts of debauchery (this isn't how election works and is unbiblical; also I think they were lying atheist because many were essentially proto anarcho-, libertarians similar to the French Revolution). They create a red light district where a bunch of stuff goes down and also recruit people from all over to Europe to move into Geneva. Rosseua loved these people. This all happens around the time Calvin enters.The situation there was closer to today where people ignored the slippery slope for years and then you got an overreaction slash making of the French Revolution. Some other quick notes about this time period not mentioned in the video series. In theory, the previous bishop had a greater enforcement mechanism than the consistory (again product of the time) although he didn't use it in the same manner; in general, the Inquisitions had less power than the consistory imo. Also, there is controversy on some of the claims so people are actually going through the archives again because some parts of the story aren't kosher.Having said that, it was still the 1500s and they ran the city similar to the Puritan structure and although he wasn't a citizen he did have influence.
Michael Servetus
Michael was a polymath who had a heretical view on the Trinity. He published his first work on the Trinity and then became a renowned doctor. At some point he reads the institutes and decides to contact Calvin. They correspond for many years and at one point Calvin sneaks into France ( at the risk of being killed ) to meet with him and he doesn't show up. Eventually, their correspondence sours and Calvin eventually cuts him off. In 1553, he published a serious Anti-Trinitarian work and attacked John Calvin.I believe Calvin sent his book to the French authorities where he is then arrested him for Heresy and sentenced to burn slowly at the stake. Calvin can be a snob and a prick, but he didn't turn him in because he was talking crap about him (this is the modern interpretation), he turned him in because Arianism was a serious offense in his worldview. Also, on a technical note (I'm not going to get too into the weeds), but many intelligent people argue Arianism collapses the Christian religion because it put Jesus on the creature side of creation. This is a strong argument (not sure if I agree with it), but I acknowledge it exists. As a modern person, I still think Arianism is technically incorrect and I think you would still be a Christian, just confused; but again we are dealing with the 1500s.Both Calvin and the Catholics church knew this, which is why he would have been put to death no matter where he went.Michael also had a relationship with the Libertines that I never really figured out. But they basically help him escape to Geneva. In previous correspondences, Calvin tells him not to come there because he will be arrested. He goes there and gets arrested. One point people neglect t is that the actual prosecutor of the trial wasn't Calvin, but Claude Rigot, who was part of the Libertines and one of Calvin's enemies. Calvin's connection to the trial was basically as a technician. Sidenote, but I think Michael got tricked by the Libertines. My conspiracy is that Micheal was a patsy, but that is another story.
End of life and legacy
Calvin was a prolific pastor who people from all over the world would come to see. He established multiple schools that children could attend whether they could pay or not. He established hospitals and places for the poor. He also established multiple doctrines including work on the Trinity (which was neglected and is important for understanding how Protestant communities are set up even non Reformed) and the signs of how to determine a church. He didn't "invent" unconditional election or predestination as other church fathers had this view and more importantly it is a plausible interpretation of the bible. Thomas Aquinas had his interpretation of double predestination ( I think double predestination isn't correct, but I get where people get there). Further, I would say all Christians believe in some form of predestination (this is a long conversation) because it's implicit in the old testament and explicit in the new. Reform minded people are just sticklers when it comes to definition in terms where other people are less strict with language (you see this in the Puritans).
Finally, I'm going to spend a minute on the doctrine of total depravity because this ties everything together. This doctrine states
that sin affects every facet of our nature. It does not mean that sinners are as bad as they possibly can be or that any one person is as bad as he possibly can be. This is straight from the Bible and I don't see how anyone works around this. But on a technical note, if you hold the Catholic view from Aquinas that sin just wounds human nature, you are basically stating again a neutral will and you separate cause and effect. Total depravity got condemned as a heresy and Jansenism (they had similar ideas to the reform theology in terms of the doctrine of grace within the Catholic Church) also got condemned. These views are basically infallibly condemned in the Catholic Church like some Protestant churches become semi-Pelagian, again meaning you separate cause and effect in practical terms (it gets into free will but that's another really long conversation). This is important because separating cause and effect infects the modern mind. Also, there is a misunderstanding on how traditional Reformed communities excelled, particularly at the local level.It comes down to that you are fundamentally responsible for your actions, not the environment because you reject Pelagianism - full stop. This is where the WASP work ethic really comes out of (Lutherans have it too as they accept total depravity). Total depravity is a presumpositional framework for understanding the US Constitution, revolutionary war, and the federalist papers. Modern Liberalism is just a form of Pelagianism and you can find it on the right and the left.
I'm not as well versed in Luther, but yeah hopefully this helps.
Clark is an interesting thinker. He has decent summarizes on different people.
https://gordonhclark.com/aquinas-by-gordon-h-clark/
Thank you guys! These inquisition episodes have been solid gold, I really hope it keeps going.