tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-922889245639375694.post1621560638254556233..comments2023-12-22T06:41:41.831-08:00Comments on strong reading: Institutes of the Christian Religion – John CalvinUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-922889245639375694.post-7705598306249009112009-08-08T16:56:42.448-07:002009-08-08T16:56:42.448-07:00Thanks, Yoni.
I have to say, I love Calvin. If i...Thanks, Yoni.<br /><br />I have to say, I love Calvin. If it weren't for the Jesus thing, I would be a Calvinist. In fact, I'm thinking of describing myself henceforth as a secular Calvinist. I love the language of creatureliness. It's such a different way of conceptualizing finitude than the sort of thing we see in Heidegger and Blanchot and co., with being-toward-death. I think Calvin might be one of the first authors we've come across who has a real sense of man's connection to the physical world. Man is first among creatures, yes, and the one responsible for dragging all other creatures into this fallen state, but there's nonetheless a profound sense of solidarity with the world behind this stance. It reminds me a great deal of this section Michel Serres has in the Natural Contract, when he's talking about the disdain we so often feel for homo religiosus/primitive man, who thought his rites made the sun rise. As moderns we dismiss him as horrendously egotistical and naive, Serres argues, but in doing so we miss something essential about the religious way of life. Homo religiosus saw himself as responsible for the world in a profound way; religion, in essence, is a way of being responsible for the world. That's absolutely evident in Calvin, and it's an understanding of religion that I admire intensely.<br /><br />Some of those passages about man being formed from dust were incredibly moving, I thought. As for the predestination, I'm with Ben about it being in some ways a preferable alternative to contemporary philanthropy. Frankly, I've always thought Calvin was dead on, if one reads predestination as a phenomenological description of the world. There are the drowned and the saved; it's not always clear who falls on what side, but eventually it becomes obvious.....<br /><br />Here's the one thing I'm not entirely sure about; does man ever become a good person, even if one of the elect? God's grace gives us faith, I know, but does it ever take away our sense of being fallen and finite? Or is it rather something closer to what Tillich had in mind when he spoke of "the necessity of accepting oneself as accepted despite one's blatant unacceptability?" I suppose what I worry about in your way of phrasing it, Ben, when you spoke of leading a good life in its entirety is that we're getting too close to aretaic ethics. In truth, I think Calvin had some anxiety about how one determines if one is among the elect, at least judging by his somewhat muddled section on anxiety in the believer v. unbeliever. If there is that transformative moment, I think under Calvinism it's not clear whether or not it was true until the end. I'm not sure there is that moment of internal decision. <br /><br />Anyway, I'm a little in love.lfchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17737181737572097625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-922889245639375694.post-25431470048138600952009-08-07T15:05:48.572-07:002009-08-07T15:05:48.572-07:00Thanks Yoni, and thanks Liane for the post last we...Thanks Yoni, and thanks Liane for the post last week. I didn't have much to say about Luther or Oberman, but the post will no doubt be helpful down the line.<br /><br />I found Calvin's rejection of free will interesting for a number of reasons. First, it is only natural that when "justification by faith alone" is pushed to the extreme, the importance of the entire world of human action is reduced to nil. We either act in accordance with the will of Satan, or with that of God. It is certainly a sweeping correction to agency talk. Indeed, the only thing that we can do is have faith, and even then, the possession of faith provides us with the knowledge that that faith is only possible by the grace of God. Complete dependence in recognition of our complete corruption. <br /><br />Within Calvin's theology, it is not that one can have faith or one can do works, but rather that the only course of action available to us is to have faith. Strictly speaking, there is nothing else that the human being can do. It is the only course of action available to us, and it is not even really an action, nor is it done freely. And this one internal decision decides everything: it is a complete transformation of the person. Only good things flow from the good person, and only the rotten from the rotten. It's a very appealing idea for me in comparison with the "what have you done lately" ethical reward system. The idea that what is important is not that one do good things but that one lead a good life, in its entirety, as a unified thing, seems to wreck our contemporary notion of philanthropy. But perhaps that's too easy a target.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08622262093442738585noreply@blogger.com