Something that's worth noting about Calvinism, Hart, and questions of "orthodoxy" is the rather idiosyncratic way that John Calvin uses the word "orthodox" to mean "correct belief" (regardless of its pedigree) rather than "established belief" or "traditional belief" or even "consensus belief." Thus Calvin can call his position on a topic "orthodox" even as he explains why he's right and the Church Fathers are wrong ("tradition" is, for Calvin, a term of abuse). This is actually also the ordinary way most Reformed Christians use the word "orthodox," at least in my experience; almost as a synonym for "biblical." It wasn't until relevatively recently, under the influence of ecumenical dialogue, that (American) Calvinists started to claim ownership of Church history and place themselves in continuity with a greater Church tradition. So yes, Hart is far more Orthodox in his position than Calvin, because Calvin wasn't interested in being "Orthodox" in the conventional sense. He would probably object to even being graded on that scale.
Incidentally, I loved the sneaky link to that piece on Lewis and universalism. I never think of Lewis anymore without think of that provocative little post.
Yes, but the Protestants really did change the world even for the Catholics and the Orthodox. I’m haunting Calvin and Hart until I catch them sitting down to clink their first drinks together. Hart and Luther share some clear attributes. Calvin too in a very different and probably less meaningful set of ways. But I expect some solid conversational value eventually.
I really do think there's something there in Calvin's view of free will. I mean, he's wrong to reject intellectualism, but I think DBH would agree with him that the will really is enslaved to sin, in need of liberation. Calvin is just wrong to conclude that the will has no transcendental orientation even in a fallen state, though he has that in common with DBH's beloved Manualist Thomists.
Thanks for this, Jesse. Might seem a simple point but I found the following articulation v helpful :
“I suspect that Calvin was a voluntarist and understood the will as primary over our capacity to see. Hart and Bulgakov are certainly in the other camp of claiming that it is our capacity to see that guides our wills. “
A joy to read in terms of learning, sobriety, reason and tone, and also for me edifying. on matters where I could use a brush up. I continue to want to wonder how these various theologies affect, determine, direct actual spiritual practice, beginning with the practice of the virtues and moving on to deeper consciousness and access to divine wisdom and clear action. I do not easily see good accounts of this connection between thought and practice except in some autobiographical reflections (Augustine magister here) and in some saints lives. Lex credendi, lex orandi. But thanks for this. The underlying struggle for me was once long ago captured by Le Clerc's famous book The Love of Learning and the Desire for God! But I have been chewing on this recently very hard.
Great question you have. And I suspect that we won’t see more healthy instances of its benefits until the church learns how to better talk about its own doctrinal history here and to cultivate the fruit of this pastorally so that it is helpful instead of harmful. Also, Le Clerc's book The Love of Learning and the Desire for God was a watershed read for me as well.
Perhaps we are from fairly different parts of the Christian church? Among Orthodox Christians, prayers for the dead have been strongly encouraged as a very helpful practice for as far back as anyone can remember. It's not remotely controversial.
“Myself, I rather like Kallistos Ware’s remark that we can’t teach it as dogma, but we can hope for it.”
I would almost say that whereas that all shall be saved can never be a matter of doctrine, the hope that all shall be saved must necessarily be.
Something that's worth noting about Calvinism, Hart, and questions of "orthodoxy" is the rather idiosyncratic way that John Calvin uses the word "orthodox" to mean "correct belief" (regardless of its pedigree) rather than "established belief" or "traditional belief" or even "consensus belief." Thus Calvin can call his position on a topic "orthodox" even as he explains why he's right and the Church Fathers are wrong ("tradition" is, for Calvin, a term of abuse). This is actually also the ordinary way most Reformed Christians use the word "orthodox," at least in my experience; almost as a synonym for "biblical." It wasn't until relevatively recently, under the influence of ecumenical dialogue, that (American) Calvinists started to claim ownership of Church history and place themselves in continuity with a greater Church tradition. So yes, Hart is far more Orthodox in his position than Calvin, because Calvin wasn't interested in being "Orthodox" in the conventional sense. He would probably object to even being graded on that scale.
Incidentally, I loved the sneaky link to that piece on Lewis and universalism. I never think of Lewis anymore without think of that provocative little post.
Yes, but the Protestants really did change the world even for the Catholics and the Orthodox. I’m haunting Calvin and Hart until I catch them sitting down to clink their first drinks together. Hart and Luther share some clear attributes. Calvin too in a very different and probably less meaningful set of ways. But I expect some solid conversational value eventually.
I really do think there's something there in Calvin's view of free will. I mean, he's wrong to reject intellectualism, but I think DBH would agree with him that the will really is enslaved to sin, in need of liberation. Calvin is just wrong to conclude that the will has no transcendental orientation even in a fallen state, though he has that in common with DBH's beloved Manualist Thomists.
Thanks for this, Jesse. Might seem a simple point but I found the following articulation v helpful :
“I suspect that Calvin was a voluntarist and understood the will as primary over our capacity to see. Hart and Bulgakov are certainly in the other camp of claiming that it is our capacity to see that guides our wills. “
Glad to hear!
A joy to read in terms of learning, sobriety, reason and tone, and also for me edifying. on matters where I could use a brush up. I continue to want to wonder how these various theologies affect, determine, direct actual spiritual practice, beginning with the practice of the virtues and moving on to deeper consciousness and access to divine wisdom and clear action. I do not easily see good accounts of this connection between thought and practice except in some autobiographical reflections (Augustine magister here) and in some saints lives. Lex credendi, lex orandi. But thanks for this. The underlying struggle for me was once long ago captured by Le Clerc's famous book The Love of Learning and the Desire for God! But I have been chewing on this recently very hard.
Great question you have. And I suspect that we won’t see more healthy instances of its benefits until the church learns how to better talk about its own doctrinal history here and to cultivate the fruit of this pastorally so that it is helpful instead of harmful. Also, Le Clerc's book The Love of Learning and the Desire for God was a watershed read for me as well.
"this point from Kallistos Ware that, although universalism cannot be taught as dogma, it is good for us to hope for it and to pray for it."
The truth or falsity of universalism cannot be changed by praying.
Kallistos Ware is speaking of what "is good for us" and what needs to change in our own hearts.
It's not good to make senseless prayers.
Perhaps we are from fairly different parts of the Christian church? Among Orthodox Christians, prayers for the dead have been strongly encouraged as a very helpful practice for as far back as anyone can remember. It's not remotely controversial.
You're diverting from the issue.
I have no idea what you mean. The guidance of my Christian shepherds in matters of prayer is not relevant?