Another area of debate between John Calvin, Aristotle and Plato is on Epistemology, the study of knowledge. It comes as no surprise that John Calvin’s epistemology is based upon the knowledge of God. Calvin did not use the methods that most philosophers use to speculate on God; Calvin focused his epistemology views from the revelation that God provides in his scripture. Calvin rejects anything outside of the revelation of God through scripture stating, “not to indulge in curiosity, or to investigate unprofitable things, because the Lord willed to instruct us, not in frivolous questions, but in piety…let us be satisfied with his knowledge”. Calvin’s view on epistemology does not make him against reasoning; He believes that knowledge and understanding
…show more content…
Aristotle believes all mankind’s knowledge comes from experience and later categories. Aristotle used his four causes to categorize knowledge, the material cause, the formal cause, efficient cause, and the final cause. Calvin disagrees with Aristotle’s position on man’s blank state claiming, “Original sin, therefore, appears to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through all the parts of the soul” (Mcneil 10). Calvin states since the fall, man is born in a state of rebellion not in a blank state or neutral.
The next area of philosophy to compare John Calvin to Plato and Aristotle is on their view on the soul. John Calvin has a purely theological assessment on the soul. Calvin starts off his assertion on this subject by going to the biblical account of original sin, describing the three different types of men’s soul; the original man, the fallen man, and the regenerated man. The first one, Adam, the original man was made in Gods image. Calvin states in his work the institutes …show more content…
I think Calvin himself has been abundantly clear that he was not a philosopher, but a simple man who stood upon scripture for his beliefs. On every aspect of philosophy Calvin starts from scripture and refuses to step out further than scripture allows. Although Calvin may have not been a philosopher, his beliefs has been shaped in some fashion by both Plato and Aristotle. Some historians argue that Calvin’s view on philosophy is residue from his earlier studies in classical philosophy before his lessons into theology, but Calvin showed a consistent growth of understanding in Plato’s and Aristotle’s work suggesting a continual studied upon them. Partee states in his book, “Calvin’s use of philosophy is historical rather than systematic…Calvin looks into philosophy for illustration for a truth not a guide to it…Calvin does not deal every area of philosophy only areas that illuminated Christian faith” (146). Partree drives on this point by stating, “Calvin answers the question, what has Athens have to do with Jerusalem? By suggesting that Athens is valuable for the purpose of insight” (146). John Calvin, the man that polished the reformers doctrines, was truly a devoted man of God. His every goal, in everything he done; was to give glory and to point towards
Aristotle believes all mankind’s knowledge comes from experience and later categories. Aristotle used his four causes to categorize knowledge, the material cause, the formal cause, efficient cause, and the final cause. Calvin disagrees with Aristotle’s position on man’s blank state claiming, “Original sin, therefore, appears to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through all the parts of the soul” (Mcneil 10). Calvin states since the fall, man is born in a state of rebellion not in a blank state or neutral.
The next area of philosophy to compare John Calvin to Plato and Aristotle is on their view on the soul. John Calvin has a purely theological assessment on the soul. Calvin starts off his assertion on this subject by going to the biblical account of original sin, describing the three different types of men’s soul; the original man, the fallen man, and the regenerated man. The first one, Adam, the original man was made in Gods image. Calvin states in his work the institutes …show more content…
I think Calvin himself has been abundantly clear that he was not a philosopher, but a simple man who stood upon scripture for his beliefs. On every aspect of philosophy Calvin starts from scripture and refuses to step out further than scripture allows. Although Calvin may have not been a philosopher, his beliefs has been shaped in some fashion by both Plato and Aristotle. Some historians argue that Calvin’s view on philosophy is residue from his earlier studies in classical philosophy before his lessons into theology, but Calvin showed a consistent growth of understanding in Plato’s and Aristotle’s work suggesting a continual studied upon them. Partee states in his book, “Calvin’s use of philosophy is historical rather than systematic…Calvin looks into philosophy for illustration for a truth not a guide to it…Calvin does not deal every area of philosophy only areas that illuminated Christian faith” (146). Partree drives on this point by stating, “Calvin answers the question, what has Athens have to do with Jerusalem? By suggesting that Athens is valuable for the purpose of insight” (146). John Calvin, the man that polished the reformers doctrines, was truly a devoted man of God. His every goal, in everything he done; was to give glory and to point towards