Judaism or Calvinism? A historic Rivalry of Traditions



Unfortunately, it is common in many reformed circles to see Judaism and Reformed theology as two oppositions of one another. Why this is doesn't necessarily make sense. I don't see why one can't be a Calvinist and fond of historic Judaism at the same time. However, I think many Calvinists are threatened by Judaism for two reasons (1) that God's elect may be someone else than themselves, and (2) that if they study Judaism, it may lead them to reject some of their own views. 

A few years ago, when I first really began researching the New Perspective on Paul, I noticed many reformed sites critical of the New Perspective. Specifically, I noticed one site in particular insists that Christians do not need to understand Judaism in order to understand the Bible, which is the subject of this post. 

Those in reformed communities who deny interpreting Scripture according to Jewish interpretations will interpret Scripture according to Reformed interpretations centuries, if not thousands of years later. 

In many ways, one of the aspects of modern Calvinism that I find to be the most hypocritical is how many of ts advocates will deny listening to the viewpoints of the early Jews or church fathers but accept interpretations of Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, or others. In short, whether the Westminster Standards or something similar, the Reformed confessions end up being more reverenced than the Apostles' Creed. I find this understanding of theology to be dangerous---as it interprets Scripture according to those fifteen hundred years after Christ. 

Whether or not one agrees with Roman Catholicism or the New Persecite on Paul, rejecting the teachings of first-century Judaism for far later traditions within Christianity is quite remarkable, to say the least. 

Many of the advocates of Reformed theology claim in the sufficiency of Scripture, but where does Scripture explicitly say that Christ only died for the elect? They deny the logic that Roman Catholics use in connecting Matthew 16 to the papacy, insisting that it falls in concepts not found in Scripture, but do the same themselves by their insistence that limited atonement is taught in Scripture. Perhaps understandably so, many Southern Baptists reject 5-point Calvinism as they see limited atonement as unprovable from Scripture (if anything, they would argue that Scripture teaches that Christ has died for all men). 

Of course, the early Jews did not all agree on everything. The Pharisees and Sadducees did not all agree, nor did the Samaritans. The Hyper-Calvinist belief in man having no free will at all was contrary to everything Judaism has always taught. But where they Judaism has historically and universally believed one way, that should say something to modern Christians. 

Just as with Judaism, the early Christians did not all agree among themselves. But there were some doctrines, never less, that was universally recognized by the church as orthodox positions, which none else could question: the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Trinity, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, etc., etc. 

And many of the early Christians did not have the perspective of the Scriptures that today's Calvinists do. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Marty demonstrated his knowledge of the Jewish faith. Likewise, both Origen of Alexandria and Jerome of Rome, two of the ancient church's greatest Biblical scholars, knew the theology and thought of Judaism very well. 

What we should all ask ourselves is how did American and European Christianity get so far from Judaism and early Christianity? While it is too often to explain this historically, Western rationalism had much to do with this. Over time, more Western thinkers began to define theological doctrines that had essentially no origins in either Judaism or Early Christianity. But Eastern Orthodoxy has been far less impacted by rationalism than its sister churches, Catholic and Protestant. Perhaps one way that Roman Catholics and Protestants can alike learn from Eastern Orthodox is that far too much of Western Christianity today derives from rationalism rather than Biblical Christianity. Tragically, Western rationalism has been extremely used, especially since the Enlightenment, to explain all aspects of God---even when teaching concepts contrary to Scripture (such as Deism). 

Critics of Wright or Catholicism are free to pursue their own thoughts. Likewise, they may have good reasons for criticism. However, I find disagreeing with the New Perspective on Paul on the grounds that some Reformed so that knowledge of ancient Judaism is not essential for understanding the Scrtiptures unimaginable. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Eucharist in New Testament Christianity Part II

Image
                                                        I: The Passover in the Old Testament For the first post in this series, check out the following link:  https://newtestamentchristianityat.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-eucharist-in-new-testament.html The Eucharist is central to the theology of Christianity. Our views of communion will affect so many other aspects of our faith. Indeed, Eucharistic theology is as essential and central to the very essence of Christianity as virtually any other doctrine.  Since not all the verses have been pasted onto this post, I encourage the reader to use a reliable Bible translation as a reference point through reading this post. I encourage them to consider and challenge my thoughts in light of Holy Scripture.  It's hard to have a serious theological discussion over most topics without referring to the Old Testament for even in places where Old Testament worship and practice are no longer relevant, without the Old Testament, we would not know that
Read more

Why Prima Scriptura is True

Image
  This is a small post. Basically, I just want to briefly argue why Prima Scriptura , that is, that Scripture is the primary authority, is the teaching of Scripture rather than that of Sola Scriptura .  Today, many Evangelicals claim that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Christians are wrong to hold traditions not found explicitly in Scripture. Some of them go so far as to claim that Sola Scriptur a is an essential of the Christian faith.  And yet nowhere in Scripture does the scriptures itself claim to be the only authority. In fact, the Apostles and elders in Acts 15 did not simply appeal to Scripture only in rejecting the Judaizers. Rather, they understood themselves as the head of the Christian Church which recognized any claims of necessary circumcision to be contrary to Scripture.  Scripture is inspired (2 Timothy 3: 16). Yet nowhere does Scripture ever claim that it alone is authoritative. In Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem was authoritative over the church, for
Read more

A Brief History of the Anglican Church

Image
                                                           I. Introduction In the modern world, it's easy to just accept claims without evidence. It's also easy to accept the opinions of one's priest or pastor without ever investigating their claims. And it's also easy to hope to find an answer through a quick Google search without carefully studying the history, philosophy, and theology of a particular doctrine. But Biblical theology requires so much more.  On the other hand, there are many issues concerning Christian history that are not addressed in Scripture. For example, Scripture never claims that Peter the Apostle went to Rome. Nor does it tell us about the origins of the Baptist or the Amish. Thus, when it comes to the study of the history of Christianity, most of it we cannot learn from the Bible alone.  Think of pews or printed Bibles and hymnal books. None of these existed in the first-century church when the New Testament was written. We learn about these pr
Read more