"Let Epicurus answer ... I have no concern with that pigsty;
"This shows itself ... in the sacrilegious words of the filthy dog Lucretius..."
Sounds like the tone of some of the more strident descendants of Calvin who have engaged me on this blog. :-)
Some 13 days into the Institutes my impressions of Calvin are
1) He can quote verses (a lot of prooftexting), although as a child of his day, he does not yet fully appreciate how to read in context. The same was of course true of Wesley.
2) He's quite sure he's right. I won't say he's arrogant yet, but I may before it's done. Certainly he knows that everyone who disagrees with him is of Satan.
3) He is depressing. His view of humanity is so dark, so dismal, that it's hard to stomach sometimes. There seems to be almost nothing left of the image of God in humanity for him. I feel like someone who's been studying demonology and has to stop because it's so dark. This is not the tone of Paul (or Luther).
4) Although Calvin is only a single predestinarian, his sense of the total depravity of humanity and the complete determinism by God of any goodness in humanity seems to fit well with the kind of abusiveness he has toward those he believes are not elect. I believe there is a connection. So far he doesn't seem to treat the non-elect with grace or love but seems to me abusive toward them.
5) I have yet to read anything that makes me think Calvin is brilliant. I came into the Institutes believing he was a genius, even if I disagree with him on many things. I still expect I will conclude that way, but thus far I am underwhelmed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm sorry to hear that. I have not actually read the Institutes myself. I guess I should, but more as a historical artifact rather than anything I would remotely dream of providing any sort of "inspiration" or spiritual guidance. ;)
I haven't read Calvin yet, other than short snippets of the Institutes, but I have read a bit of Luther. I was struck with the vitriolic way that he spoke of anyone that disagreed with him. There was no choosing to agree to disagree, you were either in agreement with him or you were of the devil. Sounds like Calvin is cut from the same cloth.
One of the problems that I have with Calvin is the sentences of death that he gave to people over religious reasons. Maybe all those that disagreed with him religiously weren't elect and it was easier to sentence them to death. I know, I know, in his situation religious disobedience was the same as civil, but still it bothers me. I guess that's a luxury I have as a 21st century man.
I am not defending Calvin, but Justo Gonzalez's does, pointing out that while Calvin did have Servetus burned, this was pretty much the order of the day, painting Calvin as simply a man of his times. Gonzalez does not mention any other executions, and I haven't gotten to the chapter on the controversies between Zwingli and the Anabaptists, so I wait to see if he excuses any of that.
Still, one might hope that Christians would have been a bit more charitable than Calvin and Luther were, but a trip to the local bookstore indicates that many feel we are as narrow minded and bigoted as ever.
On point #3, I whole-heartedly agree. When I read Calvin, I got the impression that he describes the Fall in terms of less than human. We didn't simply fall from supernatural grace, we fell from basic humanity in Calvin's view. This didn't sit well with me (particularly because, as you noted, that we're created in the image of God).
Post a Comment