The Advent of Heresy: Calvin Investigated

[Karl.C]

In definition: Any opinion, critical to the salvation message of the New Testament, that is oppositional to the teaching of scripture, as understood and accepted within the "one-body of Christ", as promulgated via the consensus of accredited theologians, who profess the apostolic (ecumenical) traditions, is a heresy.

Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philostorgius & others fron Christian history give us a good idea of the constant threat of heresy from the earliest roots of Christianity. The apostle Peter is often quoted as warning "...there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies..." (2 Peter 2:1)

We must take care in determining what is against ecumenical dogma (heresy) and what is simply contrary to the declined scale of demoninational doctrine, discipline, teaching or tradition. The later are held to be, by most theologians, helpful, but not critical to salvation!

At this point it is worth considering A.Peters testimony in his full context:

"...Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute..." (2 Peter 1:20 - 2:2.)​

Which brings us to the multitude of heresy accusations against Calvin.= personal philosophies he attempted to promulgate. Some have come to us through Calvin's novitiates, whilst others were rejected outright by his fellow Protestants and were discarded (eg: that the Logos was "autotheos" = "God of himself". Rejected because it would make the Logos the brother of God).

Core to Calvin's teaching (and considered by his opponents to be amoungst his worst heresies) is predestination (pre-ordination). An idea that a Nicene Christian (Trinitarian) must view as a diminution of Jesus the Christ's sacrifice for us, and an attack on the sovereignty of Christ over us (cp. Phil 2:6=11; 1 Cor 15:24-28). That is: According to scripture, Christ's sovereignty over us is the result of his free obedience to his Father, and this sacrifice was the result of his free submission to his Father. Negate the freedom of personal will, you negate the salvation message and the reason the Logos was incarnated!

Calvin's defenders argue that Calvin drew on Augustinian tradition. Calvin's opponents point out that selective works of Augustine are rejected outright by mainstream Orthodox Christianity (RCC,ROC,EOC,OOC etc) because they are heavily influenced by Augustine'e seven year engrossment in the Manichean heresy, and it just goes to show that Calvin, in his attachment to Augustine philosophies, was more attached to invented tradition rather than inspired scripture.

Discuss. Anyone?

 

[mark kennedy]

In definition: Any opinion, critical to the salvation message of the New Testament, that is oppositional to the teaching of scripture, as understood and accepted within the "one-body of Christ", as promulgated via the consensus of accredited theologians, who profess the apostolic (ecumenical) traditions, is a heresy.

Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philostorgius & others fron Christian history give us a good idea of the constant threat of heresy from the earliest roots of Christianity. The apostle Peter is often quoted as warning "...there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies..." (2 Peter 2:1)

We must take care in determining what is against ecumenical dogma (heresy) and what is simply contrary to the declined scale of demoninational doctrine, discipline, teaching or tradition. The later are held to be, by most theologians, helpful, but not critical to salvation!

At this point it is worth considering A.Peters testimony in his full context:

"...Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute..." (2 Peter 1:20 - 2:2.)​

Which brings us to the multitude of heresy accusations against Calvin.= personal philosophies he attempted to promulgate. Some have come to us through Calvin's novitiates, whilst others were rejected outright by his fellow Protestants and were discarded (eg: that the Logos was "autotheos" = "God of himself". Rejected because it would make the Logos the brother of God).

Core to Calvin's teaching (and considered by his opponents to be amoungst his worst heresies) is predestination (pre-ordination). An idea that a Nicene Christian (Trinitarian) must view as a diminution of Jesus the Christ's sacrifice for us, and an attack on the sovereignty of Christ over us (cp. Phil 2:6=11; 1 Cor 15:24-28). That is: According to scripture, Christ's sovereignty over us is the result of his free obedience to his Father, and this sacrifice was the result of his free submission to his Father. Negate the freedom of personal will, you negate the salvation message and the reason the Logos was incarnated!

Calvin's defenders argue that Calvin drew on Augustinian tradition. Calvin's opponents point out that selective works of Augustine are rejected outright by mainstream Orthodox Christianity (RCC,ROC,EOC,OOC etc) because they are heavily influenced by Augustine'e seven year engrossment in the Manichean heresy, and it just goes to show that Calvin, in his attachment to Augustine philosophies, was more attached to invented tradition rather than inspired scripture.

Discuss. Anyone?

Eternal security had me puzzled for years, it sounded too much like fate. Guess I've always been a Calvinist three and a half pointer. I encountered a discussion comparing the Catholic understanding of predestination and Calvinism and I favored the Catholic view. The way the Catholics have long viewed it is God predestined that all who will be saved will do so based on the nature and purposes of God, which do not change. All who are saved are saved from and for the same thing. The idea that we have no choice in salvation is simply absurd to me, we just have no choice in what salvation is.

 

[jax5434]

I'm not a Calvinist but I do not believe he was heretical. Like a number of theologians he attempted to explain, using his own intellect, something that God chose not to explain in scripture. That being how free will and Gods sovereignty can co-exist. I believe he got it wrong others believe he got it right. It does not affect anyones salvation and so, in my mind at least, is not heresy
God Bless
Jax

 

[Karl.C]

Eternal security had me puzzled for years, it sounded too much like fate. Guess I've always been a Calvinist three and a half pointer. I encountered a discussion comparing the Catholic understanding of predestination and Calvinism and I favored the Catholic view. The way the Catholics have long viewed it is God predestined that all who will be saved will do so based on the nature and purposes of God, which do not change. All who are saved are saved from and for the same thing. The idea that we have no choice in salvation is simply absurd to me, we just have no choice in what salvation is.

I suspect that no one who holds to "sola scriptura" would support Calvin's actual writings, and yet there are many who say they hold to "sola scriptura" who identify themselves as Calvanists. Ezekiel 18 heartily refutes the idea of predestination of the individual, as do less direct scriptures. Of course the rewards and penalties are predetermined, and we have fair warning in scripture as to how to attain either...

 

[Karl.C]

I'm not a Calvinist but I do not believe he was heretical. Like a number of theologians he attempted to explain, using his own intellect, something that God chose not to explain in scripture.

God explains in scripture that our fate is self determined, not pre-determined.

All the heresies that have plagued the Church have been the result of would be theologians attempting to rationalise salvation according to the philosophies of this world. In effect they oppose God'decree.

As Ezekiel 18:23-25 has God explain "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die. Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?"

That being how free will and Gods sovereignty can co-exist.

In Calvin's theology, free will is ultimately consumed by the will of God, and you cannot resist it, because at the creation of all things God foreordained that you will be saved or condemned, which makes a farce of both particular judgement & the final judgement = the outcome was fated, and because it was fated it was known to God. The mainstream Orthodox communions teach that while God is omniscient, scripture tells us, that if we sincerely repent, God will "cover" our sins, making them of no account. Likewise any virtue we might possess in the eyes of men is valueless in God's eyes (faith without works leads to death).

I believe he got it wrong others believe he got it right. It does not affect anyones salvation and so, in my mind at least, is not heresy.

Have you directly Calvin? His teaching is contrary to the salvation message of scripture! His teaching affect the salvation of those that pursue his example (not a nice chappy if you got on his wrong side).

He is considered a heretic by all the mainstream Orthodox communions (RCC,ROC,EOC,OOC etc), most, if not all, of the Reformed groups & some, if not most, Protestant groups. It should be noted that apart from the RCC, all the afore reject the authority of the roman church's magisterium and the papacy...and yet agree with them regarding Calvin...

 

[mark kennedy]

I suspect that no one who holds to "sola scriptura" would support Calvin's actual writings, and yet there are many who say they hold to "sola scriptura" who identify themselves as Calvanists. Ezekiel 18 heartily refutes the idea of predestination of the individual, as do less direct scriptures. Of course the rewards and penalties are predetermined, and we have fair warning in scripture as to how to attain either...

When Calvin wrote his commentaries the availability of the Scriptures in English was a very new thing. Solo Scriptura is in contrast to the canons of the Catholic and Orthodox churches that want to be the sole arbitrators of Biblical revelation and church authority. I find his commentary to be difficult to navigate but they belong to another time.

Ezekiel 18 has very little to do with predestination, its a message to apostate Israel.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[jax5434]

God explains in scripture that our fate is self determined, not pre-determined.

All the heresies that have plagued the Church have been the result of would be theologians attempting to rationalise salvation according to the philosophies of this world. In effect they oppose God'decree.

As Ezekiel 18:23-25 has God explain "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die. Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?"

In Calvin's theology, free will is ultimately consumed by the will of God, and you cannot resist it, because at the creation of all things God foreordained that you will be saved or condemned, which makes a farce of both particular judgement & the final judgement = the outcome was fated, and because it was fated it was known to God. The mainstream Orthodox communions teach that while God is omniscient, scripture tells us, that if we sincerely repent, God will "cover" our sins, making them of no account. Likewise any virtue we might possess in the eyes of men is valueless in God's eyes (faith without works leads to death).

Have you directly Calvin? His teaching is contrary to the salvation message of scripture! His teaching affect the salvation of those that pursue his example (not a nice chappy if you got on his wrong side).

He is considered a heretic by all the mainstream Orthodox communions (RCC,ROC,EOC,OOC etc), most, if not all, of the Reformed groups & some, if not most, Protestant groups. It should be noted that apart from the RCC, all the afore reject the authority of the roman church's magisterium and the papacy...and yet agree with them regarding Calvin...

I agree pretty much with all you said. The point about it not affecting anyones salvation is pretty simple.
1. If someone truly acknowledges Jesus Christ as their Lord (Romans 10:9) then they are saved even if they believe they were predestined in the Calvinistic sense.
2. If someone rejects Calvinism but acknowledges Jesus Christ as their Lord then they are saved even if Calvinism turns out to be true.
Other than that I thought I made it pretty clear that I am not a Calvinist. As to your allegation that all the groups you named consider Calvin a heretic, I would have to see your provenance for that. There certainly may be individuals within those organizations that believe that but I am not aware of any denominational level condemnation.

 

[Karl.C]

When Calvin wrote his commentaries the availability of the Scriptures in English was a very new thing.

Calvin wrote his theological & secular works in Latin. He was fluent in Latin. He had studied to become a priest. By Calvin's time the scriptures had been freely & openly available in Latin for over a thousand years!!!

His native language was French. It is improbable that he had fluency in English (no necessity=the educated Englishman/woman spoke french). French was the "international" trade language of his day.Apparently he also had training in Greek.

Conclusion: your excuse/assumption is contrary to the facts = invalid!

Here is an interesting article that examines Calvin from a literary viewpoint.
Calvin’s Latin

Calvin’s Latin
Carl P. E. Springer

In this paper, I will examine John Calvin’s Latin style, paying special attention to his Institutes of the Christian Religion. While Calvin’s works have been studied extensively over the years, the scholarly attention they have received has been almost exclusively from a theological perspective. In this paper, I want to explore how a consideration of his Latin prose from a literary vantage point may help readers to appreciate how Calvin’s thoughts (res) and the language (verba) he used to express these thoughts are related.

Calvin’s training in Latin was thorough. Already in his preparation for the priesthood under the tutelage of Maturin Cordier, he excelled in Latin. When he went on at age 18 to study Roman law at Orléans, he came under the influence of the humanist, Andreas Alciati, directly, and Cicero and Quintilian, indirectly. Devoting increasingly more of his energy to classical philology, Calvin prepared a commentary on Seneca’s De clementia.i It was published in 1532 but sold poorly.ii The work that established his reputation, his Institutio religionis Christianae, was first published in 1536 in Latin. Calvin produced a second edition of the work in Latin before he finally completed a French translation in 1541. An even longer Latin version appeared in 1559...​

Ezekiel 18 has very little to do with predestination, its a message to apostate Israel

Ezekiel 18 comes up a lot in theology when discussing repentance of the individual, inherited original sin & Moses' law. It is framed as a reference to the individual not Israel. Though you could take YHWH's accusation that "they" say, YHWH's ways are unjust, but it is "their" ways that are unjust, as a corporate declaration.

Have a closer read of Ezekiel 18 and you should perceive that the context is not about Israel but how YHWH judges the individual = No matter how righteous one is in their past life, if in their final years they become unrighteous, they are judged to be unrighteous, their past life is ignored. In contract, no matter how unrighteous one is in their past life, if in the final years they become righteous, they are judged to be righteous, their past life is ignored.

Solo Scriptura is in contrast to the canons of the Catholic and Orthodox churches that want to be the sole arbitrators of Biblical revelation and church authority.

Many equate "sola scriptura" as "KJV only". But these are not aware that most of the KJV translation committee couldn't read Greek, but were well educated in Latin.

It is well documented that the 1611 edition was criticised by the Greek experts from that era & the translation was criticised for its dependence on the RCC English edition. The Geneva Bible is a much better translation into English but the reason King James ordered the production of what became known as the KJV is because the Geneva Bible rendition was considered anti-monarchy.

As for the mainstream Orthodox Churches canons: well! you wouldn't have a bible canon (your OT & NT that you read) without them. Also, the canons mainly deal with resolving disputes between warring factions, keeping the Church true to the teaching of scripture and thereby combating heresy.

Consider: every modern heresy (Cambellites, Millerites, JWs, InC, Oneness etc etc etc) has Calvinist roots. Independent pastors, if they have the support of their funding congregation have nothing to restrain their imaginination & excesses...

I find his [Calvin's] commentary to be difficult to navigate but they belong to another time.

Then read Matthew Henry...not much later but easily understood...

 

[Karl.C]

I agree pretty much with all you said. The point about it not affecting anyones salvation is pretty simple.
1. If someone truly acknowledges Jesus Christ as their Lord (Romans 10:9) then they are saved even if they believe they were predestined in the Calvinistic sense.
2. If someone rejects Calvinism but acknowledges Jesus Christ as their Lord then they are saved even if Calvinism turns out to be true.
Other than that I thought I made it pretty clear that I am not a Calvinist. As to your allegation that all the groups you named consider Calvin a heretic, I would have to see your provenance for that. There certainly may be individuals within those organizations that believe that but I am not aware of any denominational level condemnation.

Basically as far as the RCC, ROC, EOC & OOC are concerned the Protestant Churches are not in schism but follow a different religion. Much like many if not most people think of the Mormons.

The High Church of England established by Henry viii is probably an exception. The HCE in my view is the RCC minus the pope & magisterium thus in schism with the RCC like the ROC & EOC.

The OOC is a mixed bunch, the monophysites are considered heretics. The miaphysites - last I read some have reconciled themselves to Chalcedon & thus to Rome, others haven't. Then there are the Nestorians who deny they are Nestorian (?)

Anyway, I am glad you called me out! Unlike Luther where there was a Papal Bull condemning him (or more particularly requiring him to be trialed), I have yet to find the same for Calvin. Calvin was chased around by local princes for heresy, but that was more of a general persecution - Calvin happened to have a high profile, so a value target. Ultimately, he found protection in Geneva, which was more than protestant friendly.

Anyway, so far all I've found is generalities that apply to all protestants. For instance: under RCC canon law anyone that leaves the Church (inclusive of the RCC,ROC,EOC & those in communion with them) & attaches themselves to another religion, sect, whatever is subject to latae sententiae. Joining a Protestant group is a common example. Why? They are deamed to profess heretical teaching.

You have highlighted to me a little curiosity: in my experience of Catholic discussion Luther is justified, Calvin isn't! Something I must investigate.

 

[Tree of Life]

If you're trying to say that Calvin was a heretic because he effectively denies the Apostles' Creed with his teaching - especially in relation to divine election - then I would gladly take the contrary position. I don't think Calvin was a heretic and I don't think the doctrines of grace in any way contradict the Apostles' Creed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Calvin wrote his theological & secular works in Latin. He was fluent in Latin. He had studied to become a priest. By Calvin's time the scriptures had been freely & openly available in Latin for over a thousand years!!!

His native language was French. It is improbable that he had fluency in English (no necessity=the educated Englishman/woman spoke french). French was the "international" trade language of his day.Apparently he also had training in Greek.

Conclusion: your excuse/assumption is contrary to the facts = invalid!

You obviously never heard of the Geneva Bible, Tyndale made the first translation into English and fifty years before the KJV there was the Geneva Bible. What he wrote in or spoke in is irrelevant, that's an obvious strawman argument. You are refuting arguments I never made.

Here is an interesting article that examines Calvin from a literary viewpoint.
Calvin’s Latin

Calvin’s Latin
Carl P. E. Springer

In this paper, I will examine John Calvin’s Latin style, paying special attention to his Institutes of the Christian Religion. While Calvin’s works have been studied extensively over the years, the scholarly attention they have received has been almost exclusively from a theological perspective. In this paper, I want to explore how a consideration of his Latin prose from a literary vantage point may help readers to appreciate how Calvin’s thoughts (res) and the language (verba) he used to express these thoughts are related.

Calvin’s training in Latin was thorough. Already in his preparation for the priesthood under the tutelage of Maturin Cordier, he excelled in Latin. When he went on at age 18 to study Roman law at Orléans, he came under the influence of the humanist, Andreas Alciati, directly, and Cicero and Quintilian, indirectly. Devoting increasingly more of his energy to classical philology, Calvin prepared a commentary on Seneca’s De clementia.i It was published in 1532 but sold poorly.ii The work that established his reputation, his Institutio religionis Christianae, was first published in 1536 in Latin. Calvin produced a second edition of the work in Latin before he finally completed a French translation in 1541. An even longer Latin version appeared in 1559...​

​

To that I say, yea so...

Ezekiel 18 comes up a lot in theology when discussing repentance of the individual, inherited original sin & Moses' law. It is framed as a reference to the individual not Israel. Though you could take YHWH's accusation that "they" say, YHWH's ways are unjust, but it is "their" ways that are unjust, as a corporate declaration.

Have a closer read of Ezekiel 18 and you should perceive that the context is not about Israel but how YHWH judges the individual = No matter how righteous one is in their past life, if in their final years they become unrighteous, they are judged to be unrighteous, their past life is ignored. In contract, no matter how unrighteous one is in their past life, if in the final years they become righteous, they are judged to be righteous, their past life is ignored.

You quote neither Calvin nor Ezekiel:

The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:

“‘The parents eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die. (Ezekiel 18:1-4)​

Personal responsibility is the issue here, it's not the sins of their fathers but their sins that will be judged:

For the world is full of buffoons and other deceivers, who wickedly sport with God, and seek material for joking from the law and the gospel: and so also it appears to have been in the Prophet's time; for although they listened to the wrath of God hanging over them, they did not cease to provoke him, and that too for many years. And not only were their own iniquities set forth against them, but also those of their fathers: hence the occasion for cavil when they heard -- For so many ages you do not cease your warfare against God: he has borne with you patiently unto this day. (Calvin's Commentaries)​

Nothing out of place here, he is saying the prophet is telling the the soul that sins will die.

Many equate "sola scriptura" as "KJV only". But these are not aware that most of the KJV translation committee couldn't read Greek, but were well educated in Latin.

They had the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible, over 80% of the KJV came from those sources.

It is well documented that the 1611 edition was criticised by the Greek experts from that era & the translation was criticised for its dependence on the RCC English edition. The Geneva Bible is a much better translation into English but the reason King James ordered the production of what became known as the KJV is because the Geneva Bible rendition was considered anti-monarchy.

Again, yea so...

As for the mainstream Orthodox Churches canons: well! you wouldn't have a bible canon (your OT & NT that you read) without them. Also, the canons mainly deal with resolving disputes between warring factions, keeping the Church true to the teaching of scripture and thereby combating heresy.

What heresy?

Consider: every modern heresy (Cambellites, Millerites, JWs, InC, Oneness etc etc etc) has Calvinist roots. Independent pastors, if they have the support of their funding congregation have nothing to restrain their imaginination & excesses...

Then read Matthew Henry...not much later but easily understood...

Protestantism has Calvinist roots, does that make it heresy? Your being pedantic.

 

[Karl.C]

You obviously never heard of the Geneva Bible

You obviously didn't read my post fully before you responded. Towards the end, I highlighted the Geneva Bible as being superior to the KJV. I also noted that the only reason the KJV got produced was because King James thought the Geneva Bible was anti-monarchy!

Tyndale made the first translation into English and fifty years before the KJV there was the Geneva Bible. What he wrote in or spoke in is irrelevant, that's an obvious strawman argument. You are refuting arguments I never made.

You are the one introducing the strawman. The rendition of scripture into English had NO impact on Calvin's theology! He was proficient in Latin!!!

In the 16th century, in Calvin's time, the production of the English version had no relevance to Europe or the rest of the world, only to England and later North America. and much later the British empire.

In the 16th Century, when Calvin wrote, all the educated masses (the elite), even in England, were educated in Latin & French.

My dad tells me that at his school (here in Oz) it was mandatory to take french and/or latin in lower high school. Why? Because that was what all the great works in literature, philosophy, science & religion were written in...

Heh! I'm only fluent in English, so I have to wait for the translations...

Interestingly, these days, when we read the English greats like Chaucer or Shakespeare we are reading censured translations into modern English of archaic English (the language of which is incomprehendable to the modern ear & its profanities unacceptable in polite society). Just a fact of history...

But you seem to have missed my point...

Calvin wrote in Latin & the Latin rendition of the scriptures which he studied & based his opinions upon, had been openly & freely available in the West for over 1300 years by the sixteenth century = when Calvin wrote. He had no dependency on any 16th century vernacular rendition! Especially English!!!

I'll respond to the rest of your post a little later...

 

[Karl.C]

Guys, thankyou for your contribution to this thread. You are providing me food for thought...

When I created this thread, I expected a tirade of pro-Calvinist rants, so to keep discussion going with these types I determined I would need to counterfeit an anti-Calvinist personna.

However, my preference, in the investigation of Calvin's theology, is one of initial neutrality with a free examination of his doctrine, and then decide if his opinions were in fact scriptural or heretical.

Having already gone through the exercise to my own satisfaction, I came to a particular conclusion. However, my analysis might be defective, hence this thread...

-----------------------​

In admission: My knowledge of Calvin is limited to his writings, both personal & public. Whilst I have read commentaries on him (pro & con) I haven't studied the subject, apart from a few critical teachings, Calvinism as promulgated by Calvin.

These days I encounter the term neo-Calvinism to refer to the modern Calvinist assemblies. This suggests to me, modern Calvinists reject Calvin to some significant extent. I'm aware of such viewpoints being common in the early days of anti-establishment reformism.

From his letters we get a true account of his opinions & it isn't a pretty sight. He maintained very extreme RCC views on doctrinal issues! Most important to our discussion, he saw the necessity of a central church authority that surpassed Rome's authoritarianism & he had a policy of "show no mercy" to anyone that opposed his views! As I understand him, he wanted to establish a theocracy, presumably with himself as the chief autocrat.

Because of Calvin's personal views, I have a very low opinion of him as a person, and suspect that influences my reading of him in his public writings as unreasonably severe (unbiblical). Still, as has been suggested in this thread, he could be viewed as a victim of his times...the age of enlightenment...

-----------------------​

As I thought upon this, I was prompted to google "Calvin & the French Revolution". There are several books on the subject. For our purpose: I came across a paper titled "‘Forgotten and forgiven’? Calvinism and French Society" that is worth a read. Unlike Luther, Calvin came from elitest stock & his sense of self-importance (well documented) & high education may have influenced his theology.
http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJSA/article-full-text-pdf/7BC5CD642909

"This paper identifies and addresses a curious and persisting omission in the sociological literature on Calvinism, as specifically expounded in sociological journals. The omission consists in the failure of explicitly specifying or restating what originally Calvinism is from the standpoint of societal origin and framework, that is of which society it is the collective creation, on the implied assumption that this is commonly known and/or irrelevant. Whatever its reasons, the omission tends to make original as distinguished from subsequent Calvinism a partial mystery in respect of its specific societal genesis and setting, especially among many sociologists outside the specialty areas of the sociology of religion and historical sociology. The paper intends to correct this omission by reexamining Calvinism in its original societal type and context and its initial historical conjuncture such as a European society at a specific point of history. It aims to contribute to redressing a gap in the sociological literature and increasing the scope of the sociology of Calvinism by adding or making explicit this missing or implied, and yet sociologically relevant element".​

-----------------------​

It needs to be remembered that Calvin was initially branded a follower of the Luther movement & thus persued by the French authorities...

A while ago, I came across a quotable quote concering the upheavals in USA society in 2016, unfortunately, whilst I copied the comment, I didn't note the source.

Still, as I think it contributes to our discussion, I'll provide the quote but give it a different context & case...

"...because the stakes were so low, the quarrels were vicious...ideas [Luther] produced rippled across the country. And just as the energy and issues involved were bound to spread beyond [Luther's] campus, they did not originate [or end] there [and were not Luther's]...Taken in isolation, the incidents [that arose] can seem the lamentable fruit of [the age of enlightenment's] least appetising traits: mollycoddling, a sub-Freudian narcissism, a hypochondriacal sense of entitlement and [with the advent of the printing press] a social-media ecosystem that reinforces insularity and cultivates an expectation of instant response..."​

 

[FreeinChrist]

Mod Hat

As a reminder, this particular forum is to set up debates by making a proposal. It is not the place for debates.​

 

[mark kennedy]

You obviously didn't read my post fully before you responded. Towards the end, I highlighted the Geneva Bible as being superior to the KJV. I also noted that the only reason the KJV got produced was because King James thought the Geneva Bible was anti-monarchy!

I don't know what you think makes you qualified to critique the Geneva Bible or the King James but 85% are from the Tyndale Bible. There isn't a dimes worth of difference in the three.

You are the one introducing the strawman. The rendition of scripture into English had NO impact on Calvin's theology! He was proficient in Latin!!!

What your arguing is simply false, John Calvin was one of the main people responsible for the Geneva Bible:

The Geneva Bible followed the Great Bible of 1539, the first authorized Bible in English, which was the authorized Bible of the Church of England.

During the reign of Queen Mary I of England (1553–58), a number of Protestant scholars fled from England to Geneva, Switzerland, which was then ruled as a republic in which John Calvin and, later, Theodore Beza, provided the primary spiritual and theological leadership. (Geneva Bible Wikipedia)​

In the 16th century, in Calvin's time, the production of the English version had no relevance to Europe or the rest of the world, only to England and later North America. and much later the British empire.

It had profound relevance, the Great Bible of 1539 and the Geneva Bible were both derived from the Tyndale and it turned the world upside down. Your on a roll, nothing you have said has been historically accurate yet.

In the 16th Century, when Calvin wrote, all the educated masses (the elite), even in England, were educated in Latin & French.

Apparently he knew something about English as well, perhaps he was better educated then you think. At any rate he was the leading influence in producing the Geneva Bible and there can be no serious question about that.

My dad tells me that at his school (here in Oz) it was mandatory to take french and/or latin in lower high school. Why? Because that was what all the great works in literature, philosophy, science & religion were written in...

Heh! I'm only fluent in English, so I have to wait for the translations...

Interestingly, these days, when we read the English greats like Chaucer or Shakespeare we are reading censured translations into modern English of archaic English (the language of which is incomprehendable to the modern ear & its profanities unacceptable in polite society). Just a fact of history...

But you seem to have missed my point...

Your right I missed the whole point, starting to wonder if your actually trying to make one.

Calvin wrote in Latin & the Latin rendition of the scriptures which he studied & based his opinions upon, had been openly & freely available in the West for over 1300 years by the sixteenth century = when Calvin wrote. He had no dependency on any 16th century vernacular rendition! Especially English!!!

I'll respond to the rest of your post a little later...

Calvin wrote his commentaries in Latin, it was later printed in his native French. Calvin isn't known for his exegetical work, he was a Lawyer and a Theologian. Calvin's theology was and is influential because it's a Biblical theology that emphasizes the sovereignty of God especially with regard to salvation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Whatever the case, if Karl.C is still interested in a formal debate I'm interested in taking up the challenge. With regard to Calvin and predestination being heresy I would have no hesitation to defend Calvin and Calvinism to any such accusations.

So, Karl.C, I await your proposal for the specific topics for the formal debate.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Karl.C]

If you're trying to say that Calvin was a heretic because he effectively denies the Apostles' Creed with his teaching - especially in relation to divine election - then I would gladly take the contrary position. I don't think Calvin was a heretic and I don't think the doctrines of grace in any way contradict the Apostles' Creed.

In the RCC we alternate between the Nicean Creed of 381CE as ecumenically accepted by all the Orthodox communions (RCC,ROC,EOC,OOC etc) and the Apostle's Creed.

Nobody in Orthodoxy fusses about the words. What is important is the scriptural message = God sent his Son, who was born of a woman (Mary), who was obedient to his Father even to the point of death on the cross, died & was buried for three days, descending into hades, and was resurrected by his Father on the third day; and there is only only one universal (the meaning of Catholic) Church (the body of Christ). I could have just chained the relevent verses together to get a 100% scriptural testimony, but I'm sure you know them off by heart.

Even Arius et al could agree to that testimony. Even the Mormons make the same testimony. So why are they deemed heretics? For the simple reason they deny that the Son is "homoousios with the Father" in a supernatural sense! The "homoousios" clause in the Nicene Creed is what sets the Orthodox apart from the heretics,

Imu, Calvin strongly held to Trinitarian belief. I've encountered commentators that suggest his fanaticism leads to neo-Sabellianism. If so then he is according to the 3rd century Church a heretic. Given the JWs etc often depict Trinitarianism as Sabellianism because of the Protestant confessions, it is a possibility.

Of more importantence (and as I raised earlier) is Calvin's idea of preordination (predestination) which directly contradicts numerous scriptures & therefore attacks Orthodox teachings (the perfection of mankind, created in the image of God; Adam's freewill; original sin; the necessity of free repentance of the individual; etc etc etc).

So that is my current focus. We can examine the less important accusations laid against Calvin at a later date...

 

[jax5434]

So is there going to be a debate or not? I don't have a dog in this fight but it might be an interesting read.

 

[Karl.C]

So is there going to be a debate or not? I don't have a dog in this fight but it might be an interesting read.

At the current moment, it doesn't look like happening. No contenders have come forward... So, for the moment, it looks like we are in wait mode

 

[jax5434]

At the current moment, it doesn't look like happening. No contenders have come forward... So, for the moment, it looks like we are in wait mode

I thought Mark Kennedy had offered to debate in post#16