a comparison

[Allan]

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.

Did I say one SHOULDN'T reead others thoughts concerning another, NO. I merely stated that one should read the actual persons writings FIRST or at the VERY least, in conjuction with what other say OF his works.

BTW - I am very familar with the works you cited as I have some and have read portions of others though I confess there is some I haven't read yet, I just don't hold to their view. Just who is questioning scholarship? That was not the point I was trying to make, some people seem to think we must accept as gospel what another wrote because they help further our view.. One must research for themselves and not just read what some wrote about what someone wrote. I find it funny when book cite other books and you go and reference that book and find the citation is actaully from another book. (no person inparticular here). Calvin (as you quoted) wrote his institutes and Commentaries for the purpose of :

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.

IN other words - You don't need someone to elaborate on what I set forth because it is designed to be an easy introduction and self elaborating concerning theology.

However, we are getting off track and need to return.

 

[Jerome]

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?

Those statements, along with the timeline and repeated revision of the Institutes, make clear that his thought is contained in both works in concert, rather than successively, as has been suggested.
It is odd that his revisions of the Institutes apparently do not reflect such a change. His commentary on "limited atonement" passages also needs to be accounted for.

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.

Google Books

 

[Allan]

Google Books

Figures.

I looked through Google books but still had a very hard time locating most of the dates you supplied. Though the other were right (except the Gospels which were written between 54 and 55. But who cares THAT much! )

Was there one inparticular you looked at or searched per book of the Bible?

 

[Allan]

Those statements, along with the timeline and repeated revision of the Institutes, make clear that his thought is contained in both works in concert, rather than successively, as has been suggested.
It is odd that his revisions of the Institutes apparently do not reflect such a change. His commentary on "limited atonement" passages also needs to be accounted for.

Actually, it was more like insinuated because I didn't know exactly when they were finished as a work, just that they were written and culminated toward the latter part of his life. Yet the fact they were written over the periods in which he was revising his Institutes, I can see what you mean by 'in concert' though they do appearently have some differences in a few areas (but who is perfect, exept Christ alone). Thanks for the help.

 

[Rippon]

At least John Calvin did not have to issue Retractions as Augustine felt compelled to do . Augustine was a free-willer for years before the Lord opened his eyes .

John Calvin released his first commentary at approximately 30 in 1539 . He died in 1564 at almost 55 years of age . I'd have to say that the bulk of his commentaries were written between 1539 and 1559 ( the last edition of the Institutes ) . He just had five more years to go with a host of medical maladies . Though he was as skinny as a rail he rarely ate . He conceded . He opted for one egg and some wine at lunchtime . Gluttony was not a pressing sin in his case .

 

[Jerome]

Figures.

I looked through Google books but still had a very hard time locating most of the dates you supplied. Though the other were right (except the Gospels which were written between 54 and 55. But who cares THAT much! )

Was there one inparticular you looked at or searched per book of the Bible?

Type in Bungener Calvin Commentaries.
The first two entries should be p. 282, which contains a useful paragraph.
Publication years for Romans and the Old Testament books are found elsewhere in the book.

 

[Allan]

Type in Bungener Calvin Commentaries.
The first two entries should be p. 282, which contains a useful paragraph.
Publication years for Romans and the Old Testament books are found elsewhere in the book.

Thanks again. I appreciate it.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

BTW - I am very familar with the works you cited as I have some and have read portions of others though I confess there is some I haven't read yet, I just don't hold to their view. Just who is questioning scholarship? That was not the point I was trying to make, some people seem to think we must accept as gospel what another wrote because they help further our view.. One must research for themselves and not just read what some wrote about what someone wrote.

Well, I won't derail this thing so this is my last point. I only cited two secondary works and am hesitant to believe that you've seen either of them. What is Steinmetz's (who's a Methodist) view? What is Muller's view? What's my view? Please tell me since I usually hear this from people on the board who like to speak for my view.

I'm not saying you need to accept what they say as gospel but at least read them, examine their method, and if you deem it wrong demonstrate that its wrong. They've familiarized themselves with the period. They know the original languages. They've compared the Latin editions and Calvin's own French translation. They've tried to see how his contemporaries understood him. And, lastly, they know the historiography, which with Calvin is messy (to put it nicely). They've made the fruits of their work easily accessible. Yes, yes research for yourself, but web searches alone of out of copyright English translations does not research make. It's too lazy to dismiss good scholarship in the name of doing it yourself and not letting others speak for a historical figure.

Without letting good secondary sources (as opposed to bad ones which are legion on Calvin) guide you on the primary ones what do you have helping you understand the primary sources other than your imagination and at that you are at the mercy of whatever translation you're using. Research must include reading the primary sources but reading them for accuracy.

I didn't quote Calvin BTW. And that's nice that you've read his introduction to the Institutes, but his thoughts in there are less than pellucid to readers today or there wouldn't be so many different opinions on his doctrine including Allan's opinion if the English translations of the Institutes (which are all bad) are as clear as you present them in this thread. I don't think I'll convince you though but at least you see some of my real view.

I'll strip down my advice then, try not to read later doctrinal developments in Reformed orthodoxy into what Calvin says or does not say in the Institutes-that's a "do it yourself" tip but a difficult one to employ.

Well, you'd think I'd give up my involvement on this forum. People usually say I have an agenda, can't think for myself, and/or treat what other mere humans say as gospel with my constant calls to using a good method in dealing with the thoughts of historical figures. However, it's rare to see the charge that if you fail to employ good method and are just a maverick performing word searches throuugh texts on the Internet that the only person whose thought you're treating as gospel by failing to see what others say and how they come about saying it is yourself.

Regards,
BJ

 

[Allan]

At least John Calvin did not have to issue Retractions as Augustine felt compelled to do . Augustine was a free-willer for years before the Lord opened his eyes .

I appreciate much of what Augustine has done however but on the flip side he maintained and perpetuated other views that were contrary to the truth. But in all I do appreciate his contribution to the growth of understanding concerning scripture.

John Calvin released his first commentary at approximately 30 in 1539 . He died in 1564 at almost 55 years of age . I'd have to say that the bulk of his commentaries were written between 1539 and 1559 ( the last edition of the Institutes ) . He just had five more years to go with a host of medical maladies . Though he was as skinny as a rail he rarely ate . He conceded . He opted for one egg and some wine at lunchtime . Gluttony was not a pressing sin in his case .

Just curious Rippon, did Augustine have a pressing sin of gluttony??

 

[Allan]

Well, I won't derail this thing so this is my last point. I only cited two secondary works and am hesitant to believe that you've seen either of them. What is Steinmetz's (who's a Methodist) view? What is Muller's view? What's my view? Please tell me since I usually hear this from people on the board who like to speak for my view.

I'm not saying you need to accept what they say as gospel but at least read them, examine their method, and if you deem it wrong demonstrate that its wrong. They've familiarized themselves with the period. They know the original languages. They've compared the Latin editions and Calvin's own French translation. They've tried to see how his contemporaries understood him. And, lastly, they know the historiography, which with Calvin is messy (to put it nicely). They've made the fruits of their work easily accessible. Yes, yes research for yourself, but web searches alone of out of copyright English translations does not research make. It's too lazy to dismiss good scholarship in the name of doing it yourself and not letting others speak for a historical figure.

Without letting good secondary sources (as opposed to bad ones which are legion on Calvin) guide you on the primary ones what do you have helping you understand the primary sources other than your imagination and at that you are at the mercy of whatever translation you're using. Research must include reading the primary sources but reading them for accuracy.

I didn't quote Calvin BTW. And that's nice that you've read his introduction to the Institutes, but his thoughts in there are less than pellucid to readers today or there wouldn't be so many different opinions on his doctrine including Allan's opinion if the English translations of the Institutes (which are all bad) are as clear as you present them in this thread. I don't think I'll convince you though but at least you see some of my real view.

I'll strip down my advice then, try not to read later doctrinal developments in Reformed orthodoxy into what Calvin says or does not say in the Institutes-that's a "do it yourself" tip but a difficult one to employ.

Regards,
BJ

My knowledge is far from web site adaptation with one liner snippets. Yes, I have read and perused all that I have stated but my knowledge of those who study another mans work is not the intent set forth in this OP. I will simply let Calvin speak for Calvin.
It is funny how we can translate thousands of languages correctly but can't seem to get Calvin right?

Those 'little snippets' I posted from Calvins commentaries are his thoughts and words set for by him to explain the scriptures as he understood them. Just because it disagrees with modern day desire is not my problem. It was asked, and I answered and gave illistration to that effect. Not that it matter but I have read much more than Calvins introduction.

And yes, they are as clear as they have been presented. He did not mispeak nor is its translation bad or inadiquate. He stated just what he meant to say concerning his understanding of the text he was addressing.

Anyway, that is all will say on the matter. I have set forth Calvins own view and let it stand on its own merit. I will let you be the scholar of Calvin and do so most readily.

So with gladness I say "Enjoy your morning and be well in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ"

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Me, a scholar of Calvin? :laugh:

I merely know what it minimally takes to accuratley present his doctrine of anything instead of pretending to let him speak for himself. And yes, no one has produced a good English translation of the Institutes and it is a sad fact.

If you want to support universal atonement/particular redemption in the Reformed tradition people like Bullinger and Musculus in the sixteenth century and Shedd, and Dabney in recent times are much clearer than Calvin on the matter. Personally, I appreciate this strand of Reformed thought, but I don't try to stuff Calvin into it since he is unclear on the matter, which is why there are differing opinions on this.

Regards,
BJ

 

[Allan]

Me, a scholar of Calvin? :laugh:

I merely know what it minimally takes to accuratley present his doctrine of anything instead of pretending to let him speak for himself. And yes, no one has produced a good English translation of the Institutes and it is a sad fact.

If you want to support universal atonement/particular redemption in the Reformed tradition people like Bullinger and Musculus in the sixteenth century and Shedd, and Dabney in recent times are much clearer than Calvin on the matter. Personally, I appreciate this strand of Reformed thought, but I don't try to stuff Calvin into it since he is unclear on the matter, which is why there are differing opinions on this.

Regards,
BJ

Pretending? :laugh: Your arrogence is typical but expected.

And if you would have looked at the thread you would KNOW that I was not supporting Universal atonement via Calvin. Though Calvin is NOTED as stating in his commentaries that Christ died for the all of mankind multiple times. Also if you would have taken the time to research this thread (just a little) you would have seen that I did not state Calvin ever stated he held the Universal Atonement view.

And unless his words are fantisy - he speaks clearly enough to know there is no pretending to the matter.

:smilewinkgrin: Enjoy your day, BJ.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Fair enough and forgive my arrogance in jumping in here without being sure of having something to say in the thread. It may be typical because I often see people accomodate Calvin here for any theological whim (the most recent example was some guy on here trying to say that Calvin believed in a "double election" using snippets from his writings). That person was surely pretending and please forgive me for stating that you were doing the same. Then there was some guy trying to make an argument from silence on Calvin's view of Christ's eternal Sonship from a passage on his doctrine of predestination. I'm a pavlov's dog on here .

I am guilty as charged for lumping you together with others like the ones I described above without seeing the "primary sources" so to speak in your posts.

We still disagree on his clarity but that's a method issue that we won't agree on it seems. Take care my friend and I'm sorry for my arrogance, but on this board I've seen too much bilge on Calvin that I read all threads that discuss him through mud-colored glasses

I charge others with laziness, but my last few posts on this thread show that the charge applies to me too. Thanks for calling me on it.

BJ

 

[Allan]

Fair enough and forgive my arrogance in jumping in here without being sure of having something to say in the thread. It may be typical because I often see people accomodate Calvin here for any theological whim (the most recent example was some guy on here trying to say that Calvin believed in a "double election" using snippets from his writings). That person was surely pretending and please forgive me for stating that you were doing the same. Then there was some guy trying to make an argument from silence on Calvin's view of Christ's eternal Sonship from a passage on his doctrine of predestination. I'm a pavlov's dog on here .

I am guilty as charged for lumping you together with others like the ones I described above without seeing the "primary sources" so to speak in your posts.

We still disagree on his clarity but that's a method issue that we won't agree on it seems. Take care my friend and I'm sorry for my arrogance, but on this board I've seen too much bilge on Calvin that I read all threads that discuss him through mud-colored glasses

BJ

On that note, I forgive and greet you gladly.

I will confess that maybe arrogance was a strong word, brash might have been better according to your zeal for correct information. I understand. Take care as you walk with him in the blessings of our Christ and Lord.

 

[donnA]

This is not a response to the last few posts, but I contune to read and study the topic.

Arminius died in 1609, almost a decade before the controversy over his teachings peaked. That occurred in 1618, when a group of the late professor's followers, known as the Remonstrants, issued a protest in the form of Five Articles to the Reformed Church of Holland. Those articles were condemned by the Synod of Dordt in 1619. The synod's five-point reply was an article-by-article refutation of the Remonstrants. (The position defined by the Synod has come to be known popularly as "the five points of Calvinism," though the five points were actually a response the Arminian Articles. Calvin himself never systematized his doctrine into five points).

The Canons of the Synod of Dordt thus constituted the Reformation's official reply to the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants were expelled from the Reformed Church, and Arminianism was tagged as a deviant doctrine. Far from dealing a crushing blow to the movement, however, the Synod of Dordt merely became the starting point for the underground spread of the doctrine. Today Arminianism is surely the majority view in Protestant churches.

There are many strains of Arminianism. The classic Arminianism of the Remonstrants had much in common with semi-pelagianism (a compromise position between the radical free-will doctrine of Pelagius and the strong predestinarian views of Augustine). The tendencies of the Remonstrants and those who followed them were barely evangelical. In the eighteenth century,

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/arminian.htm

 

[amity]

and .....?

 

[donnA]

and .....?

Arminianism was tagged as a deviant doctrine.
snip

The classic Arminianism of the Remonstrants had much in common with semi-pelagianism

Words by people who were there originally when arminianism was first being taught.

 

[donnA]

Total Depravity - that man is in absolute bondage to sin and Satan

Ok, so some do not believe the arminian list represents what they believe. I wonder what you think of total depravity then.

 

[johnp.]

(the most recent example was some guy on here trying to say that Calvin believed in a "double election" using snippets from his writings).

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 chapter 21:5.)

Do you mean like that BJ? Did he not believe in it? You surprise me.

john.

 

[Allan]

Ok, so some do not believe the arminian list represents what they believe. I wonder what you think of total depravity then.

Uh, unfortunately the classical Arminian DOES believe in the absolute depravity of man, as in just the same as the Calvinist. Do a little more research on them.

Another problem you are getting yourself into, is to whom are you refering as believing in Arminian theology?

There has been only one person in the baptist bedate section recently that even claimed to be an Arminian (ExaminingCalvinism), and though he dealt mostly with the Calvinists some of the non-cals contended with him some as well on issues.

Just as Calvinism has evlolved from the principles of Austine to the Institutes of Calvin and even beyond what he taught, so to has the free will view (or better responsiblity of truth view) has grown and matured beyond the contention of libertain free-will.


BTW - You also need to understand there IS a difference between the theological constructs and views Peligan, semi- P, Arminian, Synergism, ext, ext...
Just becaus they have some similarities does not make them one and the same. Otherwise you would have to add Calvinism to that same list because it to has similarities.