a comparison

[Allan]

Regarding his 'Commentaries'. I can not find anything that establishes a specific date to them. I have found that - like his commentaries on Psalms was written in 1557. But we DO KNOW he wrote his New Testiment Commentaries sometime in or around 1561 to which I ASSUME was the culmination of his works before he died.

Now concerning his 'Institute' and its revisions: We have lots of information.
It is interesting that even the Presbitarians don't have much info on his commentaries. Most sites that have all of his institutes do not have one link or access to Calvins 'Commentaries'.

Wiki:
[edit] History of Revisions
The original Institutes were written in Latin. Calvin wrote five major Latin editions in his lifetime (1536, 1539, 1543, 1550, and 1559). He translated the first French edition of the Institutes in 1541, corresponding to his 1539 Latin edition, and supervised the translation of 3 later French translations. The French translations of Calvin's Institutes helped to shape the French language for generations, not unlike the influence of the King James Version for the English language. The final edition of the Institutes is about five times the length of the first edition.

In English, four complete English translations have been published. The first was made in Calvin's lifetime (1561) by Thomas Norton, the son-in-law of the English Reformer Thomas Cranmer...snip

The best history of the Latin, French, and English versions of Calvin's Institutes was done by B. B. Warfield, "On the Literary History of Calvin's Institutes," published in the seventh American edition of the John Allen translation (Philadelphia, 1936).

 

[Allan]

I am ignorant on this. What is the difference between general atonement, unlimited atonement, and universal atonement? Thanks for your help.

Somehow I doubt that, I have seen you debate with others.

Basically it holds these:
General or better known as "Limited" - Christ was the propitiation in death ONLY for the elect and no other. Thus salvation is available only to those whom God elects and extended to no one else.

Unlimited or Universal Atonement (not to be confused with Universalism)
Christ was the propitiation for not our sins only but the sins of the Whole World (universal). However, though atonement is made for them is only applied to thosse who would recieve it and we know them to be the Elect. Thus salvation is available TO all, not all will be saved for not all are the elect.

Here both Calvinists and Non agree on the doctrine of Specific Redemption but not on the mechanics of Atonement.

A good synopsis from Wiki. says this:

The terms unlimited, universal, and general are somewhat of a misnomer and have been adopted primarily to distinguish this doctrine from a Calvinist understanding of limited atonement. More accurately, the call of the Gospel is universal and there are no limits on who can believe through faith, but the legal payment is still regarded as limited only to those that respond through faith in Jesus.

What It States

The purpose of the atonement was universal - Jesus died on behalf of all people, not just the elect.
The atonement makes a way for all to respond to the Gospel call - Part of the effect of the atonement is the restoration of the ability to respond to God's call of salvation (see Prevenient grace).
Salvation is available for all - The doctrine of unlimited atonement rejects the predeterminism associated with Calvinism and states that every human has the opportunity to accept Jesus through faith.
The atonement legally pays for the sins of those who believe on Jesus - Only those who believe on Jesus are forgiven - only the believers' sins are paid

What It Does Not State

Though the term unlimited atonement can easily give the incorrect assumption that Jesus' payment encompassed all men, Unlimited atonement maintains a limit on the legal effect. Jesus' death was indeed an offer of a substitutionary atonement to all, but this offer was resistible; though salvation is offered to all, not all are saved.

Amyraldism (commonly called "four-point Calvinism") holds to a view of Unlimited atonement that is very similar but not synonymous with the traditional Arminian understanding. Amyraldism teaches that God has provided Christ's atonement for all alike, but seeing that none would believe on their own, he then elects those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

As I said, these are basically what you have with moderation and slight changes per theological bents.


I illistrate the Atoning work of Christ with its example in the OT.

The High priest made an Atonement for ALL of the Nation Israel and yet we know that not all of the Nation for whom the Atonement was made were saved or actaully Gods people. We know that many at various times worshipped other gods, or not even God at all. Yet the Atonement was made (even without their permission) that whoever would believe/recieve it was justisified before their God. I also know some who contend that not one drop of Christ blood was wasted on the non-elect. but if you look back in the OT you see only a small portion of ALL the blood offered up was applied and the rest was poured out at the base of the alter, where it was trampled (trodden)under foot in the dirt. You can see that particualy phrase played out in Hebrews as a frieghtful warning (trodden under foot and its relation to the blood covenant)

But that is another story for another time.

 

[Rippon]

General atonement is the very opposite of limited atonement ! And of course , as I have said before , I prefer to use the term specific redemption or particular atonement rather than "limited atonement" which conjures up all sorts of misguided notions .

So are we clear here ? General or universal atonment is describing the same fiction .

I know the scope of the atonement is under view here . But I really hope we can get around to discussing the nature of the atonement . In other words , the propitiation or satisfaction which Christ accomplished as the penal substitute .

 

[Allan]

General atonement is the very opposite of limited atonement ! And of course , as I have said before , I prefer to use the term specific redemption or particular atonement rather than "limited atonement" which conjures up all sorts of misguided notions .

So are we clear here ? General or universal atonment is describing the same fiction .

I know the scope of the atonement is under view here . But I really hope we can get around to discussing the nature of the atonement . In other words , the propitiation or satisfaction which Christ accomplished as the penal substitute .

That might need to be another thread. And to my knowledge, hasn't been done in awhile either. :thumbs:

 

[GordonSlocum]

Arminianism
1. Free Will - Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, meaning that there was still enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

The Bible View minus Arminius and Calvin (Both are Wrong) John 1:9. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. Luke 7:50. And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
I Timothy 2:1. First of all, then, I urge that entreaties {and} prayers, petitions {and} thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men2. for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4. who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5. For there is one God, {and} one mediator also between God and men, {the} man Christ Jesus, 6. who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony {given} at the proper time., I Peter 1:1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2. according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.


Calvinism
1."T" = Total Depravity - The Calvinists believed that man is in absolute bondage to sin and Satan, unable to exercise his own will to trust in Jesus Christ without the help of God.

Both Arminianism and Calvinism are Wrong

 

[GordonSlocum]

General atonement is the very opposite of limited atonement ! And of course , as I have said before , I prefer to use the term specific redemption or particular atonement rather than "limited atonement" which conjures up all sorts of misguided notions .

So are we clear here ? General or universal atonment is describing the same fiction .

I know the scope of the atonement is under view here . But I really hope we can get around to discussing the nature of the atonement . In other words , the propitiation or satisfaction which Christ accomplished as the penal substitute .

Some People Will Never Believe Scripture, but set aside devine Truth and substitute it with the writing s of John and Jacob.
2. and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for {those of} the whole world.

 

[Rippon]

I am not setting aside the truth of the Word of God . I attempt to follow it . So do others of my persuasion regarding a number of scriptural doctrines . G.S. you are so far off the mark of rational discussion when you John Calvin this and John Calvin that . I know you are now trying to even it up a bit by your references to Jacob . But get back on track , will ya ?

Christ indeed was the propitiation for not only the sins of the elect from among the Jews ( John was a Jew , remember ) but His sacrifice was for the Gentile sheep scattered throughout the world as well .

 

[GordonSlocum]

I am not setting aside the truth of the Word of God . I attempt to follow it . So do others of my persuasion regarding a number of scriptural doctrines . G.S. you are so far off the mark of rational discussion when you John Calvin this and John Calvin that . I know you are now trying to even it up a bit by your references to Jacob . But get back on track , will ya ?

Christ indeed was the propitiation for not only the sins of the elect from among the Jews ( John was a Jew , remember ) but His sacrifice was for the Gentile sheep scattered throughout the world as well .

You are a trip. I am on track. I gave you the Bible. All you give is philosophy. You are what you are. I will trust Scripture not John or Jacob.

Will you join me?

If you know what rational was you would agree with me not John or Jacob.

Be kind every chance you get.

 

[Rippon]

Did Christ appease , satisfy , propitiate the sins of those in Hell and going there ? If their sins were "paid for " once through the death of Christ -- why must they make payment a second time ? Answer : Christ did not die for them . He paid for , atoned for , made satisfaction only for all the sins of all the elect .

What does it mean to you GS , when the Scripture says that Christ is the Good Shepherd who lays His life down for the sheep ? Each and every person on earth past , present and future can't all be sheep . He knows only the sheep . He does not know the nonsheep -- the goats which will be cast into everlasting misery .

 

[Allan]

I wrote this in Rippons "World" thread concerning the context of the word "World" in the specific verse mentioned. The meaning is established in the OT as planet or relm of wicked and sinful men (with variations of each but still holding the same implications)

Let us just look at a chapter in context concerning the word "World".
Planet - or Relm of sinful man in opposition to Gods Kingdom - ??Saved?? Not in the context it is consistantly refered to:

1Jo 4:1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1Jo 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
1Jo 4:7 ¶ Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.
1Jo 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
1Jo 4:12 ¶ No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world.
1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1Jo 4:17 ¶ Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
1Jo 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
1Jo 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
1Jo 4:20 ¶ If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jo 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

1Jo 5:1 ¶ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
1Jo 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith.
1Jo 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? ...

In this I am just dealing with the contexual meaning of world. In every instance of these chapters (also ALL other chapters of John) the writter John is dealing with those who are Gods and those of the World (in opposition to God own) we see clearly. But in the TWO spots of contention the meaning MUST be seen with that same context it is consistantly used throught the scriptures and in context herein. "The Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the 'WORLD'... and the propitiation NOT for our sins only but the sins of the WHOLE World. But we also see that throughout this chapter and the next (and previously) the word "world' means the relm of sinful and wicked men. (of whom some of us were before God called us out of the "World", that we be in the 'World' but not of the 'World')

Context is not mistaken and niether was John in dealing with the word. It maintains its meaning up till the little spot that seems to be in direct conflict with the Theology of some, and yet contexually it is what it has always been with regard to the scriptures - the relm of wicked and sinful man.
__________________

 

[Allan]

Did Christ appease , satisfy , propitiate the sins of those in Hell and going there ? If their sins were "paid for " once through the death of Christ -- why must they make payment a second time ? Answer : Christ did not die for them . He paid for , atoned for , made satisfaction only for all the sins of all the elect .

What does it mean to you GS , when the Scripture says that Christ is the Good Shepherd who lays His life down for the sheep ? Each and every person on earth past , present and future can't all be sheep . He knows only the sheep . He does not know the nonsheep -- the goats which will be cast into everlasting misery .

They are not making a payment a second time because they rejected the means of payment which leaves them the sum balance to appease God in their own merits. By this (Rejection of Christ in favor of their own works) will they be judged by God due to BOTH aspects culminating in the righteous judgment of damnation for eternity. And since Christs work was of eternal value so will their sentence be as an exact measure to His work rejected on thier behalf.

The view in reference is when a shepard puts His sheep in holding pen with OTHERS flocks or folds to await his return. When the shepard comes back the porter opens the door for Him (the shepard) and He calls His sheep forth that ALREADY KNOW Him, and they follow him out where ever He will lead. The fact they ALREADY KNOW Him is the reason they will not respond to some else calling to them. They will not follow another.

Yet we know that all who will be saved followed satan until God called to us. We followed our sin nature until God changed it. We followed the 'World' until God took us out of it and placed us in the Kingdom of His dear Son.

Then in John 10:7 Jesus changes charactor from the shepard whom they follow to the Door through whom they must come through TO BE His sheep.

In verse 9 He states:

Jhn 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Note Jesus does not say if my sheep will enter in nor did He state if my people will enter in... but if ANY MAN enter in, he shall be saved...

Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.

Who is the "they" referenced here? Contexually it is the 'they' (any man) from the previous verse that enter in will be saved (become His sheep) This is the identifier of WHO are Christ sheep and HOW they become His sheep, which Christ reference at the beginning.

Jhn 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

Now we see in context WHO HIS SHEEP ARE. It is those who enter into that relationship Through Christ which He has set forth to ANY MAN who will enter. And Jesus knows ALL who WILL come and therefore all who ARE His sheep by entering in (faith).

Then Jesus tells us how the false shepards wont sacrifice themselves for the sheep, but Jesus will (forgive the street slang) lay it all on table for His Sheep. Then we see Jesus begin AGAIN to talk about His relationship to His sheep that He KNOWS them JUST AS they KNOW HIM. In like manner He shows the intimacy of that relationship by using His relationship to Father and the Father to Him. This is NOT about future election but active present and continuous relationship that came about by "IF any man enter in" through the door he SHALL BE saved.

I can continue but that is enough to set forth my point. However I am taking us off the OP and so will cease (hopefully) and continue with the OP as set forth on comparison.

 

[amity]

Thank you. Did Calvin's beliefs about election/predestination, effectual calling, peerseverance change significantly during this time?

 

[Allan]

Thank you. Did Calvin's beliefs about election/predestination, effectual calling, peerseverance change significantly during this time?

Not to my knowledge or at least if it did (which I don't think) was not significant one way or another.

Not to bad for a Non-Cal - huh? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Jerome]

Regarding his 'Commentaries'. I can not find anything that establishes a specific date to them. I have found that - like his commentaries on Psalms was written in 1557. But we DO KNOW he wrote his New Testiment Commentaries sometime in or around 1561 to which I ASSUME was the culmination of his works before he died.

Years the Commentaries were first published, from F. Bungener's Calvin, sa vie, son oeuvre, et ses écrits:
1540 Romans
1546 I Cor.
1547 II Cor.
1548 Gal., Eph, Phil., Col., I Tim., II Tim.
1549 Titus, Heb.
1550 James, I. Thes., II Thes.
1551 Isaiah, I John, II John, III John, Jude
1552 Acts
1553 Gospels
1554 Genesis
1557 Psalms, Hosea
1559 Minor Prophets
1561 Daniel
1563 Ex,. Lev., Num., Deut., Jeremiah
1564 Joshua

In Calvin's final revision of the Institutes (1559), he repeated his conception of the relationship of the Commentaries to the Instututes:

"I may further observe, that my object in this work has been, so to prepare and train candidates for the sacred office, for the study of the sacred volume, that they may both have an easy introduction to it, and be able to prosecute it with unfaltering step; for, if I mistake not, I have given a summary of religion in all its parts, and digested it in an order which will make it easy for any one, who rightly comprehends it, to ascertain both what he ought chiefly to look for in Scripture, and also to what head he ought to refer whatever is contained in it. Having thus, as it were, paved the way, as it will be unnecessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture which I may afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrinal points, and enlarge on commonplaces, I will compress them into narrow compass. In this way much trouble and fatigue will be spared to the pious reader, provided he comes prepared with a knowledge of the present work as an indispensable prerequisite. The system here followed being set forth as in a mirror in all my Commentaries, I think it better to let it speak for itself than to give any verbal explanation of it."

 

[amity]

So, Jerome, how do you reconcile those statements with the evidence that Calvin's soteriology had seemingly changed quite a bit by the time he wrote his Commentaries, at least as far as atonement?

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Well, I'll admit to lazily not reading this whole thread but I'm always around to help dispel some lapses in historiography regarding Calvin and the Reformed tradition on the atonement. Yet, I have other things to attend to and will just post a couple of links by Dave Ponter.

The first is a brief presentation of his overview on "low" calvinism-universal atonement/particular redemption here.

The second is on the topic of John Calvin's treatment of "world" in John 3:16 here.

Remember also that Calvin stood within an established strand of thought and Reformed orthodoxy after him never viewed him as the be all and end all of Reformed theology.

Never be surprised that someone's thoughts change over their lifetime. Never be surprised if someone writes a whole bunch and lives a long time to not have neat coherence in what they have left behind. Never be surprised if someone's thoughts are misrepresented by historians that are either for or against a particular thinker with errors of commission and/or omission depending on agenda, ignorance, or just plain bad methodology. This is some of the junk one has to put up with in historical research.

There is a trend in the doctrine of the atonement in Reformed thought that predates John Owen and is quite similar to the sufficient/efficient model that is popular today in the works of Bullinger and Musculus and perhaps Vermigli (it is debatable just where Calvin came down on this). After Owen, though, there are some Americans that support this like Dabney and (I think) Shedd.

For more on Calvin, see Muller, "The Unaccomodated Calvin" and Steinmetz, "Calvin in Context." These are two good historical treatments on him that follow a proper method and won't mislead you. I'll give you some personal advice from Muller on studying Calvin: First, don't read him for a while because it's hard to read him objectively (he suggests Vermigli). Second, don't trust the English translations because none of them are good. Third, use the Institutes only for reference because you'll have to consult his commentaries, sermons, and tracts to get a good taste of his theology. Fourth, always be trying to see how his contemporaries understood him.

 

[Allan]

Just as illistrations, I will post these portions of Calvins Commentaries:

John 3:16, he said: ". . . The Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.' ...And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.''

Matthew 26:28. ". . .This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." John Calvine states: "Under the name of many he designates not a part of the world only, but the whole human race"

Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

John Calvin says: "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."

Such an understanding of these verses and the words employed in them is certainly not in keeping with many who claim to be Calvinists.

 

[Allan]

Well, I'll admit to lazily not reading this whole thread but I'm always around to help dispel some lapses in historiography regarding Calvin and the Reformed tradition on the atonement. Yet, I have other things to attend to and will just post a couple of links by Dave Ponter.

The first is a brief presentation of his overview on "low" calvinism-universal atonement/particular redemption here.

The second is on the topic of John Calvin's treatment of "world" in John 3:16 here.

Remember also that Calvin stood within an established strand of thought and Reformed orthodoxy after him never viewed him as the be all and end all of Reformed theology.

Never be surprised that someone's thoughts change over their lifetime. Never be surprised if someone writes a whole bunch and lives a long time to not have neat coherence in what they have left behind. Never be surprised if someone's thoughts are misrepresented by historians that are either for or against a particular thinker with sins of commission and/or omission depending on agenda, ignorance, or just plain bad methodology. This is some of the junk one has to put up with in historical research.

There is a trend in the doctrine of the atonement in Reformed thought that predates John Owen and is quite similar to the sufficient/efficient model that is popular today in the works of Bullinger and Musculus and perhaps Vermigli (it is debatable just where Calvin came down on this). After Owen, though, there are some Americans that support this like Dabney and (I think) Shedd.

For more on Calvin, see Muller, "The Unaccomodated Calvin" and Steinmetz, "Calvin in Context." These are two good historical treatments on him that follow a proper method and won't mislead you. I'll give you some personal advice from Muller on studying Calvin: First, don't read him for a while because it's hard to read him objectively (he suggests Vermigli). Second, don't trust the English translations because none of them are good. Third, use the Institutes only for reference because you'll have to consult his commentaries, sermons, and tracts to get a good taste of his theology. Fourth, always be trying to see how his contemporaries understood him.

Or rather than read those who speak concerning his thoughts or even iterpret what he was supposed to be saying. How about just read Calvins works. If you have a question on a portion of scripture look to his commentary and you can fairly easily find what you want in His institutes as well. Why read someone else first, concerning the one you are interested in knowing what they thought?

I agree it gives some historical depth and all but people such as Calvin wrote in such a way as to not be misunderstood in their stance.

 

[Allan]

Years the Commentaries were first published, from F. Bungener's Calvin, sa vie, son oeuvre, et ses écrits:
1540 Romans
1546 I Cor.
1547 II Cor.
1548 Gal., Eph, Phil., Col., I Tim., II Tim.
1549 Titus, Heb.
1550 James, I. Thes., II Thes.
1551 Isaiah, I John, II John, III John, Jude
1552 Acts
1553 Gospels
1554 Genesis
1557 Psalms, Hosea
1559 Minor Prophets
1561 Daniel
1563 Ex,. Lev., Num., Deut., Jeremiah
1564 Joshua

In Calvin's final revision of the Institutes (1559), he repeated his conception of the relationship of the Commentaries to the Instututes:

"I may further observe, that my object in this work has been, so to prepare and train candidates for the sacred office, for the study of the sacred volume, that they may both have an easy introduction to it, and be able to prosecute it with unfaltering step; for, if I mistake not, I have given a summary of religion in all its parts, and digested it in an order which will make it easy for any one, who rightly comprehends it, to ascertain both what he ought chiefly to look for in Scripture, and also to what head he ought to refer whatever is contained in it. Having thus, as it were, paved the way, as it will be unnecessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture which I may afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrinal points, and enlarge on commonplaces, I will compress them into narrow compass. In this way much trouble and fatigue will be spared to the pious reader, provided he comes prepared with a knowledge of the present work as an indispensable prerequisite. The system here followed being set forth as in a mirror in all my Commentaries, I think it better to let it speak for itself than to give any verbal explanation of it."

Cool, where did you get that information. I searched the web trying to find more than the dates which I posted, for almost 2 hours.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Or rather than read those who speak concerning his thoughts or even iterpret what he was supposed to be saying. How about just read Calvins works. If you have a question on a portion of scripture look to his commentary and you can fairly easily find what you want in His institutes as well. Why read someone else first, concerning the one you are interested in knowing what they thought?

I agree it gives some historical depth and all but people such as Calvin wrote in such a way as to not be misunderstood in their stance.

Well Allan, I think the discussion above (and the similar ones that recur here and other boards) illustrates that you're wrong. There's more to proper research than providing "historical depth," but most people could care less about the methods they use in presenting the thought of someone else. Sure you can post snippets from commentaries and make connections in your head with someone's thoughts from the past, but why purposely ignore good tools out there and the fruits of the research of others (from people who actually stick to a good method and hardly "interpret" what he is supposed to be saying-the nerve of that suggestion shows your unfamiliarity with the works I mentioned)? Go ahead with your pastes, but state your conclusions VERY tentatively if you insist on being so cavalier about it.

Oh well, what does Muller know anyways about Calvin that one can't find for himself with some web searches? That's the state of historical theology on this board anyways. The doctrine of the perspicuity of everything accessible on the Internet as wells as the hermeneutic of suspicion regarding scholarship.