next »

[kaysixteen]

Hvernon is exactly right-- ML was more of a 'Calvinist' than JM was.  But JM was clearly a Calvinist in the '4pt' tradition of Moise Amyrault.  This is a very common position within the fold of traditional 'Calvinist/ reformed' thinking, probably held by maybe 15% of 'Calvinists' historically-- even Calvin himself was not nearly so much of a 'high Calvinist' as 'Calvinism', a la Dort, developed later.  Lutheranism after Luther, OTOH, is rather enigmatic.

[aandsdean]

Hvernon is exactly right-- ML was more of a 'Calvinist' than JM was.  But JM was clearly a Calvinist in the '4pt' tradition of Moise Amyrault.  This is a very common position within the fold of traditional 'Calvinist/ reformed' thinking, probably held by maybe 15% of 'Calvinists' historically-- even Calvin himself was not nearly so much of a 'high Calvinist' as 'Calvinism', a la Dort, developed later.  Lutheranism after Luther, OTOH, is rather enigmatic.

I have a very early flight to catch tomorrow morning and don't have time to answer this as it deserves, so I'll pass for now (and besides, probably HVernon, K16 and I are the only people here interested in the question anyhow).

HV, yes, there's been some question on the authorship of De Doctrina, but I'm not really up on the discussion as a result of my years of reigning in hell (admin) rather than serving in heaven (research and teaching).

[oldadjunct]

I am woefully ignorant of Milton, so I can't offer much to this discussion.  I would direct attention to De Doctrina Christiana 1.3, although am I correct in understanding that this text has been the subject of recent criticism as to its authorship?  Don't we have a Milton scholar in the forumite community?....

I am neither "woefully ignorant of Milton" nor "a Milton scholar."  I will gladly defer to aandsdean on this.  But Milton's capacious learning and art does invite sectarian appropriation that he almost certainly would have resisted.

I am comfortable that if Barbara Lewalski's Blackwell biography (http://books.google.com/books?id=ZT-mlxqIYYQC) finds no need of a reference to either "Amyrauldian" or "Dort", neither play a significant role in his thinking or writing.

[oldadjunct]

I had meant to add that if I were advising a graduate student who did want to make the argument, contra Lewalski, that Milton's thought was Amyrauldian or derived from Dort I would welcome the work to the extent that it added to an understanding of Milton as opposed to an appropriation of Milton for other purposes.

[kaysixteen]

I could of course cite sources demonstrating Milton's 4pt Calvinist adherence, but what would be the point.  Some liberal biographer ignored them, so they must not be there.

[husqvarna]

Check out 420 ff. in Lewalski for Milton's relationship with Calvinism and Arminianism.  I just pulled this up from a quick book search of "Dordt" and the discussion goes on at least until p. 423, after which my googlebooks preview cuts out.

Don't know what to say about Amyrault- he was a contemporary of Milton, a little older, whose immediate influence was on the continent, although there are plenty of English theologians influenced by his thought.  Perhaps Amyrauldianism as an "ism" wasn't really talked about until the next century?  I don't know. 

The recent book English Hypothetical Universalism, which I haven't read but do hope to at some point, does not index Milton, so perhaps you are on to something about a lack of direct connection to Amyrault- I don't know enough to say.  I don't see any reference to John Davenant in Lewalski either- another reason to question K16's claim as Davenant was a major English defender of Amyrauldian views.  That said, I think your quick take on Milton's lack of interest in these matters goes a bit too far.

[husqvarna]

I could of course cite sources demonstrating Milton's 4pt Calvinist adherence, but what would be the point.  Some liberal biographer ignored them, so they must not be there.

...and K16 makes another point here- that while Milton may not demonstrate an intentional connection or continuation of Amyrault's thought, we are bickering here more about doctrinal particulars... "4 point Calvinism", or "Amyrauldianism"... without asserting any particular narrative of who Milton drew from theologically.  He's going to have his place amidst the contemporary doctrinal landscape, he just is, and one can discuss that based on the doctrines of synods and theologians that Milton may himself not have interacted with on any level of depth... that said, I suspect that he did interact with some of these ideas in some depth, simply given how important shifts in understandings of human freedom and divine interaction with the world were during this period in general and with Milton in particular.

[husqvarna]

Some liberal biographer ignored them, so they must not be there.

I don't think this is why it's not there (although it is, at least Dordt/Dort is).  Barbara Lewalski is a scholar of English literature, not church history of theology.  That's a good enough explanation for me as to why the point may not have been emphasized as much.  Someone discussing "Milton as a Reformed Thinker" would probably present a different slant, and this time neglect some literary aspects of the man rather than his theological heritage.

[oldadjunct]

I could of course cite sources demonstrating Milton's 4pt Calvinist adherence, but what would be the point.  Some liberal biographer ignored them, so they must not be there.

I had no idea that you knew her work well enough to categorize her as "liberal".  Actually, I happen to know Barbara (thus my easy access to her well respectied biography of Milton) and I haven't the slightest idea of either her political or sectarian bent since neither are things we talk about.

Sometimes I think you equate "liberal" with "fully employed", but I don't know you well enough to make that judgment.  So I won't.

Hvernon, I just received the following link from a friend of mine.  It may advance your discussion http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/114-32.0.html?start=2

[husqvarna]

Hvernon, I just received the following link from a friend of mine.  It may advance your discussion http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/114-32.0.html?start=2

Oh good!  Sadly I'm heading out for the day and will be out of town tomorrow, but I look forward to reading it and commenting this weekend or on Monday... By all means, though, please start the fighting and bickering about whatever the article says before I return!

Thanks also for the good link and thoughts on Milton, o.a.

[oldadjunct]

Check out 420 ff. in Lewalski for Milton's relationship with Calvinism and Arminianism.  I just pulled this up from a quick book search of "Dordt" and the discussion goes on at least until p. 423, after which my googlebooks preview cuts out.

Don't know what to say about Amyrault- he was a contemporary of Milton, a little older, whose immediate influence was on the continent, although there are plenty of English theologians influenced by his thought.  Perhaps Amyrauldianism as an "ism" wasn't really talked about until the next century?  I don't know. 

The recent book English Hypothetical Universalism, which I haven't read but do hope to at some point, does not index Milton, so perhaps you are on to something about a lack of direct connection to Amyrault- I don't know enough to say.  I don't see any reference to John Davenant in Lewalski either- another reason to question K16's claim as Davenant was a major English defender of Amyrauldian views.  That said, I think your quick take on Milton's lack of interest in these matters goes a bit too far.

[oldadjunct]

Check out 420 ff. in Lewalski for Milton's relationship with Calvinism and Arminianism.  I just pulled this up from a quick book search of "Dordt" and the discussion goes on at least until p. 423, after which my googlebooks preview cuts out.

Don't know what to say about Amyrault- he was a contemporary of Milton, a little older, whose immediate influence was on the continent, although there are plenty of English theologians influenced by his thought.  Perhaps Amyrauldianism as an "ism" wasn't really talked about until the next century?  I don't know. 

The recent book English Hypothetical Universalism, which I haven't read but do hope to at some point, does not index Milton, so perhaps you are on to something about a lack of direct connection to Amyrault- I don't know enough to say.  I don't see any reference to John Davenant in Lewalski either- another reason to question K16's claim as Davenant was a major English defender of Amyrauldian views.  That said, I think your quick take on Milton's lack of interest in these matters goes a bit too far.

"Things inconsequential" was frequent in the "religion/society" discourse of the mid to late 17th century in both England and the colonies.  Odd that we find such things  consequential in the 21st century.

There was truly a time in my scholarship when the fine distinctions of Arminianism interested me, they no longer do.  Even at that time, parsing down to Amyrault was not even peripheral.  I have absolutely no objection to someone being interested in those fine and old theological distinctions.  But they are antiquarian and are likely to have little literary let alone social interest.

Oh, and it is not  my "quick take on Milton's lack of interest in these matters" that "goes a bit too far."  I had already pointed out that I was no longer a Milton scholar, and emphasized that because of the breadth and depth of his mind Milton can easily be appropriated by others.

You want a handy Milton quote, take it.  However, you assume that he was always on your side, best of luck.  Then again for anyone who assumes that they know what god thinks in the Bible,  Milton is small potatoes.

[husqvarna]

while Milton may not demonstrate an intentional connection or continuation of Amyrault's thought, we are bickering here more about doctrinal particulars... "4 point Calvinism", or "Amyrauldianism"... without asserting any particular narrative of who Milton drew from theologically.  He's going to have his place amidst the contemporary doctrinal landscape, he just is, and one can discuss that based on the doctrines of synods and theologians that Milton may himself not have interacted with on any level of depth

oldadjunct, the bolded expresses what I think we've been discussing... no one's trying to appropriate Milton as some champion of a theological viewpoint... we're simply discussing where he fell on a particular matter.  Furthermore, K16 and I are certainly not claiming that Milton was "always on [our] side"... on the point in question we both actually disagree with Milton's view on the matter (at least I think we do... K16?).

On the subject of matters indifferent, I think the fact that they were "matters" at all suggests that they were topics of conversation... they were in the 17th century, and the are in the 21st.  You misunderstand the concept of adiaphora if you're trying to say that these are things not worth discussing at all... If something is adiaphora then you don't level heresy charges... but until we discuss Milton's views on divine foreordination and human free will as verging on heretical, we're far away from your characterization of us "find[ing] such things consequential" as regards the boundaries of the faith.

I'm not understanding why you seem so upset about the course of our conversation... we can agree or disagree about how Milton's beliefs related to the Calvinism of his day.  But I don't think we're trying to attack him or claim him as much as you interpret us to be doing.  We're simply bantering about what beliefs Milton held.  You think that Calvinist influences such as Dordt and Amyrault play "no significant role in his thinking or writing", while we think they might (although I'd be curious to know what you think of Lewalski's section on the Synod of Dordt and the Calvinist/Arminian debate as they affected Milton... do you now disagree with her?).  This doesn't need to be a big to-do.  No on'e trying to create Milton in their own image.  We're just trying to understand him.

[husqvarna]

Hvernon, I just received the following link from a friend of mine.  It may advance your discussion http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/114-32.0.html?start=2

I wonder if anyone is interested in discussing this?

The Lutheran two-kingdoms doctrine is very interesting... very modern, in many ways, but also (as the author makes clear for this election) very foreign to many in the modern world.  I think this idea of a strict separation between things of God and things of this world can be helpful... as he brings up, it prevents the blind following of dangerous worldly "messiahs".  At the same time, though, I think the two-kingdoms idea taken to an extreme can lead to the same sort of problems from the opposite direction... from inaction.

The author gives Nazi Germany as an example of Lutherans who fell short of the ideal:

all too many Lutheran pastors in Nazi Germany hailed Hitler as a redeemer.

...yet just as problematic, and perhaps more widespread, were the Lutherans in Germany who failed to act against Nazism because the affairs of this world were supposedly not for them to meddle in (based upon the two-kingdoms idea).  The quote offered from Bonhoeffer comes from his stay in America... as "The Cost of Discipleship" was simmering in his mind but before he fully came to realize what was required against Nazism (he even came to regret parts of Discipleship as being too cautious and not cognizant enough of the Christian's ethical role).  But fast-forward to Bonhoeffer trying to assassinate Hitler, held prisoner and hung for his act of defiance.  One wonders what makes Bonhoeffer's action different than "the organized struggle of the Church against some particular worldly evil" that he dismisses earlier. 

I think the author's view is an important presentation to make... I'm hesitant about being overly committed to any particular political theology, be it two-kingdoms, Integralist, Kuyperian, liberationist, Augustinian realist, anabaptist, secularist, or any other.  Yet I find aspects of all of these viewpoints helpful and very important to take into consideration.  I think that overly strict adherence to any ideological commitment is in itself the most dangerous wedding of religion and society, and so I try to balance an eclecticism on the matter. 

[oldadjunct]

Yes, "matters indifferent", I knew I had it off when I said "things inconsequential."  Thanks for the correction.  I accept your more informed position of how the term was used in matters of heresy, my experience with it historically was that the phrase was also used to quell contentious religious debate in social and political matters, by the 1650's the English on both sides of the Atlantic well knew "that way madness lay."

I am not at all upset.  One poster made the I think purposefully exaggerated claim that Milton was more a Lutheran than a Calvinist.  Another poster countered with characteristic self certainty that Milton was not only a Calvinist, but a very particular type of Calvinist.  You then offered that you were not knowledgeable enough of Milton to comment.  I stepped in at that point to say 1) I once had a more than passing knowledge of Milton, 2) Lewalski's well regarded biography of Milton does not mention the super fine theological subdivisions, leading me to be comfortable that they are not especially important, and 3)  Milton is the type of thinker and writer that makes it all too easy to try to pigeonhole him, seldom with any success.