Peripatetic Learning

calvin, times three

carl sweatman — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:59:38 +0000

My apologies for the lack of ‘Calvin in a year’ posting; the laptop has been acting up, and I hesitate to use it for long periods of time. That being the case, while covering three specific readings, I’ll need to keep this post somewhat brief–albeit brevity times three, seeing that I’m a bit behind with the daily quotes.

1) As noted in the last post, Calvin makes a case for ‘knowledge of God [being] implanted in the human mind’ (Inst 1.3) and how some attempt to excise that knowledge from who they are–so that they can (attempt to) become who/what they desire. Next, Calvin explores more of this compulsion to separate oneself from the knowledge of God (see Inst 1.4). The result of the separation is a callousness or hardness of heart, which in turn leads to repulsion and even hatred toward God. However, Calvin notes the (unacceptable) paradox within such people when he says:

[A] sense of Deity is naturally engraven on the human heart, in the fact, that the very reprobate are forced to acknowledge it. When at their ease, they can jest about God, and talk pertly and loquaciously in disparagement of his power; but should despair, from any cause, overtake them, it will stimulate them to seek him, and dictate ejaculatory prayers, proving that they were not entirely ignorant of God, but had perversely suppressed feelings which ought to have been earlier manifested.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.4.4

2) The next reading (see Inst 1.5.1-4) continues the ‘knowledge of God’ theme, only this time Calvin’s focus is on external support for such knowledge–i.e. what we might loosely call cosmology (or, ‘natural theology’).* As he argues (and I paraphrase), a key point of this chapter is to show that while God displays his wisdom and power throughout creation, it is only by ‘extreme stupidity’ that people continue to ask, Where is God?

Moreover, below the surface of the argument, I almost hear Calvin saying: God is not some vicious tyrant demanding loyalty without just cause (as tyrants do); instead God has lovingly and patiently gone out of his way not only to reveal his existence by also show himself worthy of respect.** Two examples of this are: the innate knowledge of God, given by God himself; and the external reality of creation, which he made. Specifically thinking of the wonders and depths of the cosmos, Calvin says:

none who have the use of their eyes can be ignorant of the divine skill manifested so conspicuously in the endless variety, yet distinct and well-ordered array, of the heavenly host; and, therefore, it is plain that the Lord has furnished every man with abundant proofs of his wisdom. The same is true in regard to the structure of the human frame. To determine the connection of its parts, its symmetry and beauty, with the skill of a Galen . . . requires singular acuteness; and yet all men acknowledge that the human body bears on its face such proofs of ingenious contrivance as are sufficient to proclaim the admirable wisdom of its Maker.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.5.2

3) The final reading related to this post (see Inst 1.5.5-8) seems to respond to the explanations given by those who not only suppress (or even excise) innate knowledge of God but also deny God as Creator. In other words, Calvin appears to confronting those who wish to say, ‘By my own skill and knowledge, I can define life and existence apart from God.’ To which Calvin rightly says:

Nothing, indeed, can be more preposterous than to enjoy those nobel endowments which bespeak the divine presence within us, and to neglect him who, of his own good pleasure, bestows them upon us.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.5.6

————————————————————
* While Calvin divides this chapter into two parts (i.e. 1.5.1-10 and 1.5.11-15), the reading plan I’m following divides it into four parts.
** Cue the criticism of Bertrand Russell.

Filed under: Biblical-theology, Calvin in a year Tagged: bible, Calvin in a year, christianity, doctrine, personal, reading

‘example’ in what way?

carl sweatman — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:23:18 +0000

Now for something slightly different, in the sense that I ordinary refrain from this sort of post but I’m feeling compelled to do it.* I will have to come back to the details of this later, but I wanted to throw out the basics now and see what you think. And by ‘come back to this later’ I mean, write something proper–with footnotes and everything. This also means I’m not interacting with any scholarship at this point; this is just me.

Last night, while doing my evening read of the Greek NT (as you do), I came to the following passage and became curious about a seemingly incidental detail. Here’s the passage (1 Thess 1.6-7):

καὶ υ͑μεῖς μιμηταὶ η͑μῶν ε͗γενήθητε καὶ τοῦ κυρίου, δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον ε͗ν θλίψει πολλῇ μετὰ χαρᾶς πνεύματος α͑γίου, ὥστε γενέσθαι υ͑μᾶς τύπον πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ε͗ν τῇ Μακεδονία καὶ ε͗ν τῇ ͗Αχαϊᾳ.

[6]and you became imitators of us and of the Lord, having taken hold of [or received] the word amongst great tribulation with [the] joy of the Holy Spirit, [7]so that you yourselves became an example for all the faithful in Macedonia and in Achaia.

For this post, I’m leaving aside the textual issues in order to focus on other things.** Let’s begin with a question: is the result clause of 1.7 linked with the participial phrase of 1.6b, the main clause of 1.6a or the whole of 1.6? Now let’s see what happens when we focus on each one.

If it is linked with1.6b, then it seems as though the example set refers to the circumstances–and especially the manner–in which the Thessalonians received the word (i.e. the gospel). Thus, the example to others reveals how one behaves or responds in the face of affliction or persecution (i.e. ‘with the joy of the Holy Spirit]). If linked with 1.6a, then it would seem as though the example refers to the solidarity between the Thessalonians believers, the apostles (i.e. the ‘us’) and the Lord (i.e. Jesus). In other words: the Thessalonians are examples to others because they imitate (i.e. reflect) the apostles, who in turn reflect Christ.

However if the result clause of 1.7 is linked with the whole of 1.6 (which is what I think), the emphasis would seem to fall on the logical (if not necessary) connection between the ideas of relationship (or, identity) and response (or, behaviour). In other words: like Christ and the apostles, the Thessalonians endure persecution (or, ‘great tribulation’) with joy; they neither complain, retaliate nor run into hiding; and that sort of steadfastness is not only commendable but worthy of respect (cf. 1 Pt 3). As a result, in imitating Christ and the apostles in how they respond to affliction, they become an example for other who might also be experience similar pains.

One final point that leads me to think 1.7 refers to the whole of 1.6 is the seemingly incidental mention of the Holy Spirit. As far as I can tell, for Paul the Spirit is not only the means by which believers are identified with Christ but also the agent through whom believers receive strength to endure trials and tribulations.

_______________________________________
* My hesitance is linked with my lack of confidence.
** For those curious, by ‘textual issues’ I mean: 1) the two witness that insert a καὶ between χαρᾶς and πνεύματος, thus giving the reading: ‘with joy and by [the] Holy Spirit’. And 2) the singular use of τύπον instead of the expected τύπους, in the light of the plural personal pronoun associated with it. In other words, it just seems strange for Paul to say, ‘you [plural] became an example [singular]‘; it would be better to say, ‘you [plural] became examples [plural].’

Filed under: Biblical-theology, Random Tagged: 1 Thess 1.6-7, bible, biblical interpretation, personal, Random, the apostle Paul

calvin for today

carl sweatman — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:41:12 +0000

Today’s reading comes from a chapter bearing the ostensibly positive title, ‘Knowledge of God Implanted in the Human Mind’ (Institutes 1.3). I say ‘ostensibly’ because, even though the chapter is bracketed with positive affirmations, the substance of the chapter is rather grim. I may be speaking out of turn, but it appears as though Calvin introduces this grimness now in order to preface a later (and fuller) critique of the human condition. We’ll have to wait and see if that is indeed the case. For now, I offer two quotes from today’s reading–both are admittedly quite grim, but I will try to draw out some positives. First:

For the world (as will be shortly seen)* labours as much as it can to shake off all knowledge of God, and corrupts his worship in innumerable ways. I only say, that, when the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means of despising God, becomes enfeebled, the sense of Deity, which of all things they wished most to be extinguished, is still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.3.3.

One positive that comes out of this is that in spite of human efforts to jettison God, God still remains; he is unmoved and undaunted by man’s kicking and screaming against him. (The whole, ‘kicking against the goads’ [cf. Acts 26.14] thing comes to mind). And second:

It is most absurd, therefore, to maintain, as some do, that religion was devised by the cunning and craft of a few individuals, as a means of keeping the body of people in due subjection, while there was nothing which those very individuals, while teaching others to worship God, less believed than the existence of God.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.3.2.

Two positives can be recognised here. One, criticisms are nothing new. Modern critics of religions (specifically Christianity) are neither pioneering new ground nor championing a novel or even profound assessment; they are merely repeating tired and insubstantial conclusions proffered by earlier generations. And second, these sorts of criticisms only work if the caricature against which they are levelled is in fact a true representation of religion (especially Christianity). However, I think Calvin wants to show that such caricatures are indeed false portraits of true Christianity, and that if the criticisms thrown at the caricature were aimed at what Christian truly is, their feebleness (nay, impotence) would be exposed.

______________________________________
* It is this parenthetical statement that makes me see this chapter as a preface to a later discussion.

Filed under: Calvin in a year, Random Tagged: bible, Calvin in a year, christianity, doctrine, personal, reading

planned thought of the day

carl sweatman — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:28:12 +0000

Yesterday I mentioned the plan to read through Calvin’s Institutes in a year. Day three is now finished. Prior to that I gave a summary of my (meagre) blogging efforts in 2011. In the latter post, I proposed the idea of trying to blog more often (and hopefully with better content); and in the light of former post (still with me?), I came up with an idea: to meet the goal of ‘more often’ (in terms of quantity), why not give a ‘thought of the day’ from Calvin? So that’s what I’ll do. Sound good? Here’s today’s:

[I]t is not the mere fear of punishment that restrains [the pious man]* from sin. Loving and revering God as his father, honouring and obeying him as his master, although there were no hell, he would revolt at the very idea of offending him. Such is pure and genuine religion, namely, confidence in God coupled with serious fear–fear, which both includes in it willing reverence, and brings along with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed by the law. And it ouught to be more carefully considered, that all men promiscuously do homage to God, but very few truly reverence him. On all hands there is abundance of ostentatious ceremonies, but sincerity of heart is rare.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.2.2.

This brought to mind Hos 6.6: ‘For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, an in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings’ (cf. Isa 1.11-17).

___________________________________
* I am using the term ‘man’ in the sense that Calvin most likely used it–i.e. an ancient classification term denoting a particular species, in this case: a human being. And because the ancient term, α͗νθρωπος is grammatically ‘masculine’ all related pronouns will agree in ‘gender’ with this antecedent.

Filed under: Calvin in a year, Random Tagged: bible, Calvin in a year, christianity, doctrine, personal, reading

help, please

carl sweatman — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:20:27 +0000

All right, this is a new one for me. I went to save my work and was immediately confronted with this message:

I should say this was the second time I received that message. On the first occasion, based on what the window says, I decided to close all of the unnecessary programs to see if that would help. (As you can tell, no blue dots [=open programs] other than Finder and Word). However, after I did that I still received this message upon trying to save. I clicked “OK” and got this:

I then clicked “OK” here (mainly because it was my only option), and was confronted with this:

Here I clicked “Yes” (obviously because I want to save this–some how). However, even after clicking “Yes” the lovely red dot in the top left corner (greyed out in this picture because of the intrusion of the warning) still indicates that the work is not saved. I attempted to by-pass things by saving the file to my USB key (i.e. “Big Drive”), but I was slapped with the exact same set of messages.

This issue comes a very bad time (as they always do), seeing that this paper/chapter needs to be submitted by the 4th. I don’t want to lose anything, including my mind, so I am begging for any and all help I can get.

Filed under: Random Tagged: Annoyance, Mac problems, personal

calvin, here and there

carl sweatman — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:38:17 +0000

Along with Jim West (and presumably a load of others), I’m reading through Calvin’s, Institutes of the Christian Religion in a year.* Part of this decision is rooted in the fact that I’ve never read this work from cover to cover; I’ve ashamedly only read it piecemeal. The other part is because I’ve recently developed an interest in the early history of the Protestant Reformation, a subject about which I sadly know only a little.

Yesterday’s reading was the Preface to the Institutes, which involved a somewhat heated (yet controlled) critique of how a particular gathering of Christians are enduring the persecutions of a much larger gathering. (Yeah, glad we’ve moved on since Calvin’s time). His aim, which admittedly gets away from him, is to show how those being persecuted (and Calvin is a part of this group) are enduring such things unjustly, and that the doctrines they uphold are not contrary to Scripture–as their adversaries claim. In fact, Calvin describes the ones enduring persecution as faithful to Scriptural teaching while those inflicting persecution are operating outside of Scripture–even though they firmly believe they have its support.

Today’s reading addresses the first point of the first topic, the topic being ‘God’ and the point being the distinction yet necessary connection between ‘knowledge of God’ and ‘knowledge of ourselves.’ His case here is fairly straightforward, yet it must be weighed carefully (at least, in my opinion). I say that because there are points in the argument where confusion could arise and we draw wrong conclusions about what Calvin in fact says. To be rather candid, I now see how my earlier (impatient) readings of Calvin led me to false assumptions about the case he is trying to make. I am curious to see what other changes will occur as I continue reading. (This could be scary).

Until then, let me leave you with two quotations from today’s reading, one simply because its contents grabbed my attention and the other because of something completely different (sort of). First:

So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being his is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme follow; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.1.2.

This, for me, distills the substance of Paul’s argument in both Rom 1.20-25 (cf. 1.28-32) and 1 Cor 1.18-25. And the second quotation:

we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves.

–Calvin, Institutes 1.1.1.

When I read this, it immediately sounded familiar. On the side, I’ve been reading Tolstoy’s Resurrection and it was this book that I realised was the source of the familiarity. At a crucial stage in the narrative, the lead character, Nehklyudov undergoes a dramatic change within himself–something he cannot explain. In Calvin’s language, Nehklyudov moves from only looking at the earth (i.e. seeing himself as centre of all things, and deserving of all of life’s pleasures because of his status) to seeing the infinity that lies beyond and how infinitesimal he truly is in relation to that beyond. This transition also brought into sharp relief the cancer of his own condition: he valued his status as supreme and deemed all others as dregs of the world because they were not his equal. However the transition changed everything, especially his perceptions:

It was a strange thing–ever since Nehklyudov had began to realize his own faults and to be disgusted with himself he ceased to be disgusted with other people.

–Tolstoy, Resurrection 161.**

Our perceptions of other people are determined in part by our perceptions of ourselves, and how we define ourselves is determined by how we choose to understand and define God.

____________________________________________
* The link to Jim’s blog offers you a helpful plan to follow, if you’re interesting in taking part. If you are, then you might want to download the plan and get cracking; Calvin’s Institutes is not A.A. Milne.
** This from the 1966 Penguin Classics edition.

Filed under: Calvin in a year, Random Tagged: bible, Calvin in a year, christianity, doctrine, personal, reading

my 2011 blogging summary

carl sweatman — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:08:24 +0000

This was sent to me by the lovely people at WordPress. Admittedly, this summary is not really substantial in terms of content; I’m sure the one sent to Jim West nearly rivalled Jacob Neusner’s CV. Despite the brevity of mine, it was rather interesting to see the stats. So, for your enjoyment (or boredom), here’s the stuff:

Crunchy Numbers

A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 3,300 times in 2011. If it were a cable car, it would take about 55 trips to carry that many people.
In 2011, there were [76] new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to [198] posts. There were 25 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 19mb. That’s about 2 pictures per month.
The busiest day of the year was October 22nd with 169 views. The most popular post that day was On Pliny’s ostrich and reactive behaviour.

Stalkers (er, How They Found Me)

Some visitors came searching, mostly for ‘peripatetic learning,’ ‘scared ostrich,’ ‘ostrich scared,’ ‘ostrich burying head,’ and ‘the middle of the earth allen austin.’

Where They Come From (with some added details)

Most visitors came from the United States.
- Top five places, with numbers: California (187), Georgia (92), Ohio (67), Texas (49) and Florida (29)
The United Kingdom & Australia were not far behind.
- Top five from UK, with numbers: Gloucestershire (297), London (40), Birmingham (13), Wiltshire (6) and Cambridgeshire (5)
- Top five from Australia, with numbers: Western Australia (24), New South Wales (19), Victoria (7), Queensland (6) and South Australia (6)

Who Commented the Most (I’m editing this one slightly; WordPress’ details were a bit off–no offence)

Matthew, Jake, Nick, George, Mark and Deof. (Thanks guys, I do appreciate your feedback and insight).

Most Viewed Posts (the Top Ten, with numbers)

On Pliny’s ostrich and reactive behaviour (184)
no surprises (93)
olympic logo and eisegesis (84)
ouch (74)
on marriage: meaning and significance (73)
I got gas . . . (48)
try again (46)
quote(s) of the day (42)
pics of former shelves (42)
did I miss something? (31)

Most Commented Post (I’m adding this one, just for fun)

style and a test

So there you go. Happy days. The (tentative) goal will be to do better and more this year. Thanks to everyone who has wandered here and interacted with this blog in some way. I appreciate your digital company. Have a wonderful new year!

Filed under: Random Tagged: blogging stats, just for fun, personal, Random

o, holy night(s)

carl sweatman — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:19:02 +0000

One of my lovely wife’s favourite Christmas carols is O, Holy Night. To extend the joy for just a bit longer, I’ve decided to include a few different renditions and see which one you like best. Here are the contenders (in no particular order):

Shane & Shane (admittedly, it breaks off too soon)
Crossroads Church, Cincinnati (camera angle is a tad strange, but oh well)
Harry Connick, Jr. (sorry for the initial ad)
Bing Crosby
Martina McBride
Tracy Chapman
Third Day (feel free to clap along at the beginning)
Nat King Cole

Any others that come to mind are certainly welcome.

Filed under: Random Tagged: christmas carols, personal, Random

all in a good brew

carl sweatman — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:28:37 +0000

While I do not need more ‘proof’ that coffee is good and not, as one friend calls it, ‘the devil’s urine’; this article in Yahoo’s food page offered pleasant support to an already pleasing endeavour. Although, I must say that I have a slight issue with number 4: ‘[Coffee] can harbor bacteria.’ (Keep in mind, this article is about facts and not benefits; the two can be quite different).

My issue here is that, in light of what the ‘fact’ states, bacterial growth is not necessarily the fault of coffee; the fault in this case lies with those who fail to clean out their coffee makers. (Heaven forbid that I suggest humans need to own up to the problems they cause and not assign blame elsewhere). Moreover, the propensity for bacterial growth is not something exclusively inherent to coffee; nearly any (if not all) food stuff has the potential of becoming the host for a bacterial Glastonbury. Thus, there is no real (or even good) reason to single out coffee in this way. Shame.

Now, time for more coffee.

Filed under: Random Tagged: coffee facts, fun, personal, Random, ranting, slight sarcasm

from possibility to certainty in just 6 short pages

carl sweatman — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:15:24 +0000

Virtually every morning at the office, I keep to a particular routine: arrive c. 7.00am; prayer and Bible reading until c. 8.00am; study/review a particular language (either Greek or German) until c. 9.00am; random ‘academic’ reading until c. 10.00am; and then work on my dissertation until c. 12.00pm, at which point I break for lunch. After lunch, I tend to check on e-mails and/or do a blog post [such as this one] and then do nothing but dissertation stuff for the rest of the day).

My ‘academic’ reading for this morning was C.J. den Heyer’s, Jesus and the Doctrine of the Atonement (1998). Not really sure why I’ve taken on an interest in the specific topic of atonement, but I am enjoying what I’m reading–especially Martin Hengel’s, The Atonement: Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (1981) and David Brondos’, Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption (2006). However the reason for this post is not connected with den Heyer’s views on the atonement as it is a particular detail about the historical Jesus that den Heyer gives.

When briefly describing the political and social environment into which Jesus was born and later ministered, den Heyer calls attention to the Jewish Zealots and the party of the Pharisees.* The former responded to foreign occupation in dramatic ways in an effort to maintain Jewish heritage and identity, while the latter tended to seek amicable relations with the powers that be while at the same time remaining true to Judaism. It is within this context that den Heyer makes the following suggestion (p. 2):

It seems likely that Jesus came from their circles [i.e. the Pharisees]. We can infer from the Gospels that his parents observed the commandments of the Torah closely.

I’m not so much bothered by the second claim, because it can be reasonably inferred primarily because such an inferrence has the support of what the Gospels testify and imply about Jesus’ parents. (Certainly, one would hope the den Heyer is not making the assumption that observance of Torah necessarily entails membership with the Pharisees; although the converse could be argued). However, I am struck by the suggestion that Jesus came from the party of the Pharisees.** What struck me ever further was how den Heyer moved from this mere suggestion (i.e. ‘it seems likely’) to the more determined claim (p. 3):

The origin of the Pharisaic movement, to which Jesus’ parents belonged . . .

before finally settling on the decidedly certain belief (p. 7):

Despite [Jesus'] Pharisaic background . . .

What truly bothers me about this movement is that at no point along the way does den Heyer attempt to justify either the logical sequence (a sequence that seems a little backwards to me) or the historicity of the claims themselves. While I ultimately disagree with the arguments of Maccoby, he at least gave some discussion on how he arrived at his conclusions. den Heyer does nothing remotely similar, which is a really a shame because if he’s going to make that move (or offer that portrait of Jesus, which he presumably wants his readers to accept as historical), then he needs to provide clear reasons for the move and why its results are historically viable.

__________________________________
* Here I am following E. Ferguson’s distinction between ‘sects’ and ‘parties’–see Backgrounds to Early Christianity (2003), 513.
** This, of course, is not original to den Heyer; H. Maccoby advocated precisely that point in his aptly and unambiguously titled, Jesus the Pharisee (2003), which elaborates a key theme in his earlier work, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (1986).