Calvinism started with John Calvin True or false?

[TCassidy]

"In his expositions [Calvin] is not always what moderns would call Calvinistic" —Charles Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries

Calvin's Christianae Religionis Institutio (Christian Religious Instruction) was published in Latin in 1536 and in French 1541. There was a second (possibly third) edition published in Latin in 1559 and in French in 1560.

William Whittingham, an English Reformed scholar, who lived in Europe during the anti-Protestant reign of "Bloody" Mary, and brother-in-law to John Calvin, may have provided much input to the later revisions of Calvin's work.

That and the various translations, and translations of translations, probably accounts for many of the seeming conflict between this and his commentary series. Also of note is the target of the various writings. The commentaries were aimed at the laymen in the churches, but his Christianae Religionis Institutio assumed some theological training, so obviously go much deeper.

 

[HankD]

Christianity started with Christ

ergo ... calvinism started with ...

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Christianity started with Christ

ergo ... calvinism started with ...

HankD

Christ.

 

[rsr]

The Magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc.) were deeply influenced by Augustine on matters of soteriology.

 

[JonC]

And John calvin should be seen as really being the "Father" of the Presby branch of calvinism, not we who are in the Baptist one, as we agree with him on Sotierology and the scriptures, but disagree in many other areas!

Sometimes people develop a theology that emphasizes things in a way that was not emphasized in the past. For example, if I were to reform the SBC (just using that because I'm SBC) then I may highlight certain things that were not previously clearly in focus, yet also not denied, by SBC doctrine. John Calvin introduced several aspects that, while not necessarily denied, were not of primary focus in previous generations. His doctrine of penal substitution, for example, did not match Luther's substitution theory. It's not that Calvin "invented" something, but he did articulate it in a way so as to introduce "Calvinism" for the first time. And the five points of Calvinism, as well as the more narrow TULIP, are dependent on Calvin's system as a whole (if you look at at, even if you disagree, you should at least be able to see how each part is dependent on the other). So I think it fair to say Calvinism originated with Calvin, but the origins that form each doctrine come from Scripture.

 

[TCassidy]

And the five points of Calvinism, as well as the more narrow TULIP, are dependent on Calvin's system as a whole (if you look at at, even if you disagree, you should at least be able to see how each part is dependent on the other).

I disagree. TULIP (an acronym that dates only to the early 20th century) is based on the Five Heads of Doctrine which resulted from the Canons of the Synod of Dort in 1619, long (55 years) after Calvin's death in 1564.

The divines of Dort were influenced by Augustine of Hippo (died in 430) who was, of course, greatly influenced by the Apostle Paul whom he called his "beloved example."

So I think it fair to say Calvinism originated with Calvin, but the origins that form each doctrine come from Scripture.

I disagree. If you mean by "Calvinism" monergistic soteriology then Calvin had nothing to do with "Calvinism" for, as you say "the origins that form each doctrine come from Scripture."

That is one of many reasons I try to eschew the terms "Calvinism" and "Calvinist" because as soon as I use those terms I am accused of sprinkling babies, church authority over civil government, and other absurdities inherent in Calvin's writings.

 

[utilyan]

Calvinism been around forever, its in the bible.

The very first inkling of Calvinist doctrine started with Satan and Adam in genesis. Assuming we need to put the TULIP together.


Genesis 3

2The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”4The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die!

Once Saved Always Saved, perseverance of the saints

Eve was a Saint, without sin, Child of God. Once saved always saved.



Genesis 3

11And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”

Adam lays the blame on God, aka God ordained his sin, The woman you gave.




The Pharisees the direct opposition against Jesus.

They believed they didn't have to do anything Good because they were chosen by God, sound familiar?

Just try to find that same attitude among Christians, I don't have to do anything right, I'm chosen by God.

8“Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.


Pharisees believe God's love was only limited to them and everyone else is for hell.

Attitude wise is there any difference? NOPE they took off children of Abraham T-shirt and put on Elect of God T-shirt, SAME EXACT fellah.

"Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done!" -- Charles Spurgeon.

Matthew 23

11“The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13“But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’

The tax collector here, he doesn't declare himself elect.------

 

[Rippon]

That is one of many reasons I try to eschew the terms "Calvinism" and "Calvinist" because as soon as I use those terms I am accused of sprinkling babies, church authority over civil government, and other absurdities inherent in Calvin's writings.

Well, you are misinformed on one point. Calvin did not believe in church authority over civil government.

 

[Rippon]

But Calvin was not interested in the English or Scottish reformations. His interest was reforming France, his homeland.

No, you are mistaken. Calvin's interest was the edification of all of Christendom. It was not centered on his home country. He kept in touch with many ministers and congregations from various nations such as England, Germany, Italy, Poland and more.

 

[JonC]

I disagree. TULIP (an acronym that dates only to the early 20th century) is based on the Five Heads of Doctrine which resulted from the Canons of the Synod of Dort in 1619, long (55 years) after Calvin's death in 1564.

TULIP is not an acronym that accurately and fully represents the “Five Points” as expressed in the Canons of Dort. What I mean is that TULIP is in one way vague, but in another used to exclude as “moderate” those who believe Christ is the Savior of all mankind but in a particular way the Savior of the elect (that the Cross was a provision for all mankind but an effective atonement for those given the Son). It is in this way based on the Canons of Dort (I’ve used the “Five Points” as you’ve used the “Five Heads of Doctrine”), but is removed from the Canons.

The Canons of Dort were in reaction to the Five Articles, which represented the beliefs of the Remonstrants, which in turn represented the doctrines taught by James Arminius (after his death). Arminius’ original objection was to divine predestination as systematized by Theodore Beza (Calvin’s student).

TULIP, the Canons of Dort, and Calvinism as systematized under Beza are not the Calvinism of John Calvin. But they are dependent on Calvin’s system. Apart from John Calvin’s contributions to Reformed doctrine there would be no “Calvinism” today.

I disagree. If you mean by "Calvinism" monergistic soteriology then Calvin had nothing to do with "Calvinism" for, as you say "the origins that form each doctrine come from Scripture."

That is one of many reasons I try to eschew the terms "Calvinism" and "Calvinist" because as soon as I use those terms I am accused of sprinkling babies, church authority over civil government, and other absurdities inherent in Calvin's writings.

I do not believe that “Calvinism” today would exist outside of Beza’s systematization of Calvin’s work and without John Calvin’s formulation of Penal Substitution. The truths may be there (as they were in the early church writings), but it wouldn’t be “Calvinism”.

For example, the OP links Luther with Calvin in affirming “Calvinism”. But just accepting a doctrine of total depravity, unconditional election, eternal security, ect. does not make one a Calvinist. I do not believe “Calvinism” fits into any theory of atonement except Penal Substitution (which was John Calvin’s contribution, and not what Luther held).

The reason I say the “origins that form each doctrine come form Scripture” is that the difference is not Scripture but interpretation or systematizing those interpretations (the focus, emphasis, ect.). As evidence, consider how Calvinism changed with Beza’s priority of Divine Sovereignty. The elements didn’t change, but by emphasis the theology itself took on a distinctive flavor.

 

[HankD]

Christ.

I agree - well calvin got it right about 88% of the time.

My opinion of course.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree. TULIP (an acronym that dates only to the early 20th century) is based on the Five Heads of Doctrine which resulted from the Canons of the Synod of Dort in 1619, long (55 years) after Calvin's death in 1564.

The divines of Dort were influenced by Augustine of Hippo (died in 430) who was, of course, greatly influenced by the Apostle Paul whom he called his "beloved example."
I disagree. If you mean by "Calvinism" monergistic soteriology then Calvin had nothing to do with "Calvinism" for, as you say "the origins that form each doctrine come from Scripture."

That is one of many reasons I try to eschew the terms "Calvinism" and "Calvinist" because as soon as I use those terms I am accused of sprinkling babies, church authority over civil government, and other absurdities inherent in Calvin's writings.

Think the first theologian who espoused this in a real sense apart from the Apostles was Augustine...

 

[Yeshua1]

Sometimes people develop a theology that emphasizes things in a way that was not emphasized in the past. For example, if I were to reform the SBC (just using that because I'm SBC) then I may highlight certain things that were not previously clearly in focus, yet also not denied, by SBC doctrine. John Calvin introduced several aspects that, while not necessarily denied, were not of primary focus in previous generations. His doctrine of penal substitution, for example, did not match Luther's substitution theory. It's not that Calvin "invented" something, but he did articulate it in a way so as to introduce "Calvinism" for the first time. And the five points of Calvinism, as well as the more narrow TULIP, are dependent on Calvin's system as a whole (if you look at at, even if you disagree, you should at least be able to see how each part is dependent on the other). So I think it fair to say Calvinism originated with Calvin, but the origins that form each doctrine come from Scripture.

It started mainly with Apsotle paul, then Aigustine,and then Calvin and others really expanded on it!

 

[JonC]

It started mainly with Apsotle paul, then Aigustine,and then Calvin and others really expanded on it!

I may agree had you used "contextualized" rather than "expanded on".

I believe that there were changes and nuances throughout history and that we can see throughout the development of these theologies a sense of the environment through which they came. I don’t mean one is right or one is wrong, but that often the emphasis on a truth is reactionary. What we end up with, IMHO, are often theological differences that originate with the same Scriptures but separate as one truth is emphasized over another.

For example, the early writings of the church seem to focus more on the Atonement as Christ’s victory over death/evil with the aspect of substitution falling into this ultimate context. Calvin seem to focus on the appeasement of God’s wrath through the substitutionary death of Christ with victory over death/evil falling within this ultimate context. Neither denies the other, but the focuses are different. I suspect this is due to the circumstances in which each articulated their doctrines.

 

[Yeshua1]

I may agree had you used "contextualized" rather than "expanded on".

I believe that there were changes and nuances throughout history and that we can see throughout the development of these theologies a sense of the environment through which they came. I don’t mean one is right or one is wrong, but that often the emphasis on a truth is reactionary. What we end up with, IMHO, are often theological differences that originate with the same Scriptures but separate as one truth is emphasized over another.

For example, the early writings of the church seem to focus more on the Atonement as Christ’s victory over death/evil with the aspect of substitution falling into this ultimate context. Calvin seem to focus on the appeasement of God’s wrath through the substitutionary death of Christ with victory over death/evil falling within this ultimate context. Neither denies the other, but the focuses are different. I suspect this is due to the circumstances in which each articulated their doctrines.

Think that what we now call calvinism was originated in the books of Paul, Augustine then took those truths and started to build theology out from there, and then Calvin and others made it go into the full blown system called calvinism today!

 

[TCassidy]

Arminius’ original objection was to divine predestination as systematized by Theodore Beza (Calvin’s student).

What most Arminians fail to realize is that James Arminius was a 4 point "Calvinist." His only difference was "Unconditional Election." He believed Election was conditioned on God's foreknowledge of a person's faith in Christ. (Which, in my opinion, creates a terrible and unresolvable paradox.)

 

[utilyan]

Augustine was against TOTAL DEPRAVITY by his apologetics against the Manicheans who insisted on Total Depravity.



Chapter 10.— Natures Corruptible, Because Made of Nothing
All corruptible natures therefore are natures at all only so far as they are from God, nor would they be corruptible if they were of Him; because they would be what He himself is. Therefore of whatever measure, of whatever form, of whatever order, they are, they are so because it is God by whom they were made; but they are not immutable, because it is nothing of which they were made. For it is sacrilegious audacity to make nothing and God equal, as when we wish to make what has been born of God such as what has been made by Him out of nothing.



Chapter 17.— Nature, in as Far as It is Nature, No Evil
No nature, therefore, as far as it is nature, is evil; but to each nature there is no evil except to be diminished in respect of good. But if by being diminished it should be consumed so that there is no good, no nature would be left; not only such as the Manichæans introduce, where so great good things are found that their exceeding blindness is wonderful, but such as any one can introduce.




Augustine argued there is no such thing as "Evil Nature" Because it has to come from God to be natural,

If you take something natural that is from God and corrupt it to the point there is no GOOD, then no nature at all would be left.



For example SIN is not natural, it is Unnatural. If there existed a type of human who was corrupted to the point that no Good remains, Then you can't call him Human for one.

How much of your CAR can we chop away till you say its not a CAR anymore?

Augustine is pointing out common sense, If humanity has completely lost all that is good about it, then it has been destroyed period.

 

[TCassidy]

LOL! Augustine's comments have absolutely nothing to do with Total Depravity. Augustine is saying that the nature which comes from God cannot be corrupted.

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

 

[HankD]

What most Arminians fail to realize is that James Arminius was a 4 point "Calvinist." His only difference was "Unconditional Election." He believed Election was conditioned on God's foreknowledge of a person's faith in Christ. (Which, in my opinion, creates a terrible and unresolvable paradox.)

Like a virgin giving birth?

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Like a virgin giving birth?

HankD

No. God can do anything.