CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Thomas S. Kuhn’s (1962/1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) is a landmark study devoted to the history of science.1 Kuhn, as a self-described “practicing historian of science” (1977: 3) emphasizes the critical role of paradigms, which are taken to be “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners” (1970: viii). A paradigm consists of the fundamental ideas, methods, language, and theories that are accepted by the members of a scientific community. A paradigm is critical to the potential progress of science as “no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism” (Kuhn, 1970: 16–17) SSR emphasized the importance of the evolution of science (Bird 2000, Wray 2011). Thus, SSR brought back historical insights that had been dropped with the eminence of logical positivism and its focus on empirical evidence (Ayer 1959, Carnap 1937). SSR was not an historical account of science, but instead pointed out how the textbook accounts of science highlighting received theory differ substantially from the rich descriptions of the process of advancing this theory. SSR showed that science primarily advances through shifts in theory and not by the accumulation of knowledge, which was commonly held prior to publication of SSR (Oppenheim and Putnam 1958). A key insight from SSR was that contradictory theories cannot be simply reduced to a unified (dialectical) synthesis, but rather that the ideas of a successful competing paradigm must displace ideas of the old paradigm. In the next section, we describe Kuhn’s (1970) notion of paradigms. Then, we consider Kuhn’s (1970) thesis of paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions, and provide an evaluation regarding SSR’s influence on our understanding of the scientific process. We conclude by considering the practical implications of paradigms and paradigm shifts for modern business management researchers and suggest that ethical rules of conversation are at least as critical for the health of a scientific community as methodological rules (e.g., the rules of logical positivism) derived from the philosophy of science.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
A paradigm consists of the fundamental ideas, methods, language, and theories that are accepted by the members of a scientific community. A paradigm is critical to the potential progress of science as “no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism” (Kuhn, 1970: 16–17) SSR emphasized the importance of the evolution of science (Bird 2000, Wray 2011). Thus, SSR brought back historical insights that had been dropped with the eminence of logical positivism and its focus on empirical evidence (Ayer 1959, Carnap 1937). SSR was not an historical account of science, but instead pointed out how the textbook accounts of science highlighting received theory differ substantially from the rich descriptions of the process of advancing this theory. SSR showed that science primarily advances through shifts in theory and not by the accumulation of knowledge, which was commonly held prior to publication of SSR (Oppenheim and Putnam 1958). A key insight from SSR was that contradictory theories cannot be simply reduced to a unified (dialectical) synthesis, but rather that the ideas of a successful competing paradigm must displace ideas of the old paradigm. The problem confronting the study is to proffer a critical evaluation of Thomas Kuhn
1.2 SCOPE
John Calvin taught on a number of subjects ranging from the knowledge of God, natural religion, biblical doctrine of creation and providence. He also taught on the fall of man, original sin, the perfect standard of righteousness in the law and the Holy Spirit and faith. Although Calvin teaches all these, they lie outside the confines of this essay.
This research shall centre on Calvin’s major teachings on predestination and justification by faith. Attempt shall be made to examine Calvin’s other theologies on the nature of the church, which includes the meaning of baptism and Lord’s Supper, likewise the authority of the scripture shall also be examined.
The paper contains five chapters, chapter one is on the introduction and statement of problem, which is mainly on the reasons and justification of the essay. Chapter two brings to light the biography of Calvin, which includes his birth, education influence and career in Geneva. Calvin’s major theology on the subject of predestination and justification by faith. In chapter three Calvin’s other theologies on the church and the authority of the scriptures are discussed. Chapter four will look into the theological disagreement and concord between Calvin Luther and Zwingli. The last chapters will summarize and appraise Calvin’s theology.
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The aim of this essay is to analyse John Calvin’s theology on predestination, justification by faith, the nature of the church including baptism, and the Lord’s Supper and the authority of the scripture. An attempt shall be made to compare the view of major reformers like Martin Luther and Zwingli, furthermore this essay will look at what other scholars said about Calvin and his theology bringing out clearly where Calvin is misrepresented, the research also aims at bringing out the implications of his teachings and suggests ways out of the riddles.
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The life of John Calvin, his theology and works proliferate literature. A good number of people have written their projects, thesis, dissertations etc on his life, theology or work in Geneva. It looks very much like entering into competition with those who have, to a great extent, written much about him. But because Calvin’s life and theology have been approached from every possible angle. One is not prevented from adding to the already existing materials on the same man.
The method to be adopted in this work is primarily library research, which includes textbooks, literature reviews, periodicals, unpublished articles and other printed materials related to the study.
1.5 LIMITATION OF STUDY
The present study is distinctively limited. First in the area to be covered because it deals with few aspects of Calvin’s teachings. Secondly since nearly all the materials on Calvin are foreign, it might be difficult to get all the materials that one need for this work. Although this work will be solely based on library research one still has to go beyond one’s own school library for materials since one university library is self-sufficient. But time will not be not on our side.
1.6 DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
1.6.1 PREDESTINATION
According to Calvin’s “predestination is the eternal decree of God by which he had determined in himself what would have to become of every individual of mankind…” for we are not all created with a similar destiny but eternal damnation for others.
1.6.2 JUSTIFICATION
“Justification” is a legal sentence or declaration issued by God in which he pronounces the person in question free from any fault or guilt and acceptable in His sight. The person is declared to have met all the requirements of God’s Holy law and to possess a perfect righteousness”.
The term “justify” is a forensic term meaning acquit or declare righteous, it is the opposite of condemn, it is always in the hands of the judge to decide. From the litigant point of view to justify is to get the verdict from the beginning God’s dealing with men have alwys been described in forensic terms. God requires righteousness from men and the demonstrate His righteousness as Judge by taking vengeance on those who fall short of it. If God passes judgement against anyone, no one can acquit him. Paul describes that it takes the favour of God to acquit sinners whom He has condemned. In the mind of Paul, justification means “…God’s act of remitting since of guilty men, accounting them righteous, freely, by his grace through faith in Christ, on the ground, not of their own works, but of the representative law keeping and redemptive blood shedding of the Lord Jesus Christ on their behalf. For Paul, justification is God’s fundamental act of blessing which liberates from the past and provide for the future. On the other hand, it means that God has forgiven man bring to an end the hostility between God and man.
Justification is further explained as a gift from God since man through the law is condemned because of his sin and therefore cannot glory before God. But man has been justified because he place his faith in God.
