How can I refuse since you asked me specifically. Twice!
You should appreciate the historical irony of putting an Anabaptist (that’s me) in the position of potentially feeling he needs to defend Calvin. But the irony won’t last – because I won’t. I strive to follow Christ, and if Calvin wants to come along I will keep good company with him; but if it would seem ways must part, then I will bid Calvin farewell and continue on after Christ. But that’s easy for me to say since I am not steeped in the reformed traditions in the first place. So in that equitable spirit, my scandalous deficiency of loyalty must extend to other traditions such as yours as well. However, they are all (Calvin’s included) valued for how they may help me understand scriptures and Christ. I have my own traditions too that would shake me up considerably more in my own turn if the same choice was brought to bear.
Arakaki writes at one point:
Thus, Calvin’s belief in total depravity was based upon a narrow theological perspective.
Given Jon’s input above I’m willing to also allow for the possibility that… Arakaki’s take on Calvin here may be based on a narrow perspective of Calvin’s work. That is the obligatory charity I will put up for Calvin here. But now let me devolve into personal opinions.
It seems to me on initial (and fast) reading that I am more comfortable with the Easter formulation of things, given that they insist on free-will, and the necessity of free-will for love to really exist. I think that way too.
Another way in which I may have some tinges of Christian humanism showing through is in how we answer the question about what is our most basic human nature. I may depart from Calvin on this one too, though always with the caveat that it could be more me misunderstanding Calvin --or even being ignorant entirely of what he’s actually said.
Where Calvin (or so I suppose) settles on depravity as our most core nature, I think there may be a core that is even deeper yet. And I do write this with Jon’s corrective in mind above. Perhaps Calvin might actually agree with me here. In any case, while wickedness is a “very early development” in the stage of human affairs, it does not appear to me to have that scriptural primacy that the original creation retains for itself. We were created “good” after all, before evil left its mark. While none of us escapes that evil mark, I would argue that all the more so, then, neither do we escape the original good image of God imprinted in each of us. And that to me is to be embraced as the more primal, core identity to recognize in ourselves and in others. Evil still has its due, and is universally there to be reckoned with, to be sure. Will I die on any hills trying to sell others on this. Maybe not. But I think this question of our most basic human identity is a potentially much more important discussion to have than the next one I’ll mention: predestination.
I’m quite willing to hold all discussions of predestination at arms length indefinitely for want of support where one should most hope to find it: in the life and teachings from Christ himself.
And one particular annoying, but always fascinating habit Christ has, is never giving a ‘yes / no’ answer to his questioners. So in that spirit, let me pose this (to myself and you and all who get tied up in knots over free will): A little boy has been starved for some time. You discover him, and set a feast before him. He digs in with a hearty energy that only a starved soul could display. So answer me this: did the lad have free will about whether or not he partook of your offering of food? If you can give the definitive answer to that, then you’ll have your answer on whether or not any of us truly have free will.
Meanwhile, I’ll behave and live as if we do [have freewill]. And some things just don’t seem like important distinctions to me. Whether or not God “foreknows” or “fore-ordains” makes little difference to me, as I will continue to behave as if I have free-will anyway because …I believe I actually do. So it would seem I favor the “foreknows” over the “fore-ordains”. And I’m fine with that. But I’m not going to lose any sleep trying to convince others to use one word over the other. I behave as if I have choice because that is what I see being modeled in the bible, and most importantly, by Christ himself.
I’ve been reading and listening to so many things lately that I forgot where I heard this (maybe around here even?). But one of the church fathers has been quoted as saying that whenever he encounters a particularly hard scripture, he brings that ‘hard nut’ into the Messianic light of Christ, which is the rock on which that nut always breaks open. I appreciate and try to use that approach myself. And perhaps in some cases, the light of Christ shows us that a particular ‘nut’ doesn’t even need to be opened. That might generally apply to some of the philosophy and words involved in our discussions here.
Hopefully I’ve touched on some matters of interest. It sounds like I could probably get on fine in an Easter Orthodox setting. But I’ll not presume too much.
I’ve a question for you regarding the Eastern Orthodox. Somebody I know who spent time living in Greece in for many years once told me that in broad characterization, the western church looked to Peter as its first and foremost leader after Christ. Whereas the eastern church looked to Paul. (Not to say that either one “writes off” the other, of course --we’re only speaking of who is hearkened to as a kind of “first pope” if you will - literally in the first case of course!) What do you think of that characterization?
[with edits]
2:39