64 Critiques of John Calvin

[Illuminator]

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

I hope my reply is helpful for readers who seek to understand the difference between the two theological systems and competing claims. May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...-of-john-calvin-introduction-master-list.html
Let's look at what we agree on:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/john-calvins-15-surprisingly-catholic-views

 

[Carbon]

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

Oh yes of course.

I hope my reply is helpful for readers who seek to understand the difference between the two theological systems and competing claims.

It just may be.

May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth.

Indeed.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...-of-john-calvin-introduction-master-list.html
Let's look at what we agree on:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/john-calvins-15-surprisingly-catholic-views

 

[Carbon]

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

I hope my reply is helpful for readers who seek to understand the difference between the two theological systems and competing claims. May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...-of-john-calvin-introduction-master-list.html
Let's look at what we agree on:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/john-calvins-15-surprisingly-catholic-views

I'm just going to comment on this one point for now.

4. Calvin believed in the primacy of St. Peter, as leader of the apostles: “There is no senate without a consul, no bench of judges without a president or chancellor, no college without a provost, no company without a master. Thus there would be no absurdity were we to confess that the apostles had conferred such a primacy on Peter.” (IV, 6:8)

If anyone desires to know what Calvin was talking about, oh his treatment on this, I'd advise actually reading it.

It may also be good to read (IV, 6:9) as well.

It is quite clear Calvin did not agree with or accept RC teachings.

Sorry Illuminator, you fail again.

 

[Carbon]

4. Calvin believed in the primacy of St. Peter, as leader of the apostles: “There is no senate without a consul, no bench of judges without a president or chancellor, no college without a provost, no company without a master. Thus there would be no absurdity were we to confess that the apostles had conferred such a primacy on Peter.” (IV, 6:8)

It may also be good to read (IV, 6:9) as well.


IV, 6:9
But suppose, as the Romanists would have it that it were good and profitable for the whole world to be embraced within one monarchy - something utterly absurd - but suppose this were so.
I will still not on that account concede that the same thing should prevail in the government of the church. For it has Christ as its sole Head, under whose sway all of us cleave to one another, according to that order and that form of policy which he had laid down. They do signal injury to Christ when they would have one man set over the church universal, on the pretext that the church cannot be without a head. For Christ is the Head "from whom the whole body , joined and knit through every bond of mutual ministry (insofar as each member functions) achieves its growth" [Eph 4:15-16]. Do you see how he includes all mortals without exception in the body, but leaves the honor and name of the Head to Christ alone? Do you see how he assigns to each member a certain measure, and a definite and limited function, in order that perfection of grace as well as the supreme power of governing may remain with Christ alone?

So @Illuminator I am not sure if you are intentionally being dishonest or if you really don't understand what you read. If in fact, you read the institutes?

 

[Illuminator]

So @Illuminator I am not sure if you are intentionally being dishonest or if you really don't understand what you read. If in fact, you read the institutes?

What you are saying is Dave Armstrong doesn't understand the Institutes. Did you, in fact, understand the brief introduction of my first source? You seem rigidly opposed to finding any common ground. But you find plenty of common ground with paranoid fundamentalists with their pope=anti-Christ or CC=whore lunacy.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...-of-john-calvin-introduction-master-list.htmlThese replies are more in-depth than what was eventually compiled in my book, Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin. I literally responded line-by-line to almost all of Book IV of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, which runs about 500 pages. The original series (#1-55) was completed in 2009, for Calvin’s 500th birthday. I have slightly revised and abridged them, and added or updated links. I have since added nine other installments as well.

John Calvin is just about the best debater that Protestants have, in their entire history.

I’ll be utilizing for my purposes, the edition translated by Henry Beveridge for the Calvin Translation Society in 1846, from the 1559 edition in Latin; reprinted by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand Rapids, Michigan), 1995, and available online.

My biggest interest lies in Book IV: Of the Holy Catholic Church. This is where the real contrast between Calvinism and Catholicism is most evident. I like to go right to the heart of any given issue, and that’s located here, in my opinion.

A few (minority anti-Catholic type) Reformed Protestants, familiar with my apologetic work and highly critical of it, have questioned whether I am qualified at all to undertake such a project as this.

My response has been twofold. I stated, first of all, that if I were as profoundly ignorant and underinformed and unqualified as they made out, then Calvinists had nothing whatever to fear from this book, or the larger set of online replies, as they would be their own refutation, and self-evidently absurd.

Their very protest, then, seemed to suggest that they feared such a reply far more than their words were letting on. Why worry about it? I can do no harm to their cause if they are correct about my alleged utter lack of qualifications.

The second defense I made was to appeal to Calvin’s own claims for his work, and its intended audience. It was not supposed to be for scholars and theologians only, but rather, primarily for students and laymen (just as St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica was intended as introductory instruction). He expresses this in several introductory comments to the Institutes. (click on the above link for further reading)

 

[Carbon]

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

Hello @Illuminator, The Institutes in many areas are critical of Catholicism for sure because it speaks on many theological subjects. Calvin, I believe it is a great expositor whom God Himself raised up and brought forward for teaching and for leading many out of the great Whore of Cathoism. So we should expect it to be very critical of Catholicism.

I hope my reply is helpful for readers who seek to understand the difference between the two theological systems and competing claims. May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth.

I'm glad you decided tospeak up concerning these things. May God open your eyes as well.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...-of-john-calvin-introduction-master-list.html
Let's look at what we agree on:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/john-calvins-15-surprisingly-catholic-views

 

[Carbon]

I'm just going to comment on this one point for now.



If anyone desires to know what Calvin was talking about, oh his treatment on this, I'd advise actually reading it.

It may also be good to read (IV, 6:9) as well.

It is quite clear Calvin did not agree with or accept RC teachings.

Sorry Illuminator, you fail again.

Has anyone read this yet? If so, your thoughts?
Have you re-read it @Illuminator?

 

[Carbon]

John Calvin is just about the best debater that Protestants have, in their entire history.

Oh, John Cavin was much more than just a great debater.

 

[makesends]

A few (minority anti-Catholic type) Reformed Protestants, familiar with my apologetic work and highly critical of it, have questioned whether I am qualified at all to undertake such a project as this.

My response has been twofold. I stated, first of all, that if I were as profoundly ignorant and underinformed and unqualified as they made out, then Calvinists had nothing whatever to fear from this book, or the larger set of online replies, as they would be their own refutation, and self-evidently absurd.

Their very protest, then, seemed to suggest that they feared such a reply far more than their words were letting on. Why worry about it? I can do no harm to their cause if they are correct about my alleged utter lack of qualifications.

This is a defensive argument on a par with the 'bandwagon fallacy', or 'appeal to majority'. Even before beginning this argument, the assumption is made that the question on the minds of those protesting the argument are concerned with whether or not there is 'something to fear'. MOST books are written with a rather large degree of error and worse, of different sorts. Yours is 'just another one'. What Calvinists and the Reformed are doing is simple. They see public error, and refute it, wanting the truth to prevail in the minds of whoever wrote or whoever reads.

I could present an equally erroneous argument, that you in presenting this one are demonstrating that your whole aim is to beat down your opponent(s) so that you could win.

Second, you present it as though to lend credence to your work, when actually it only is an attempted protest against protestants (Lol, 'sorry' about the play on words) of your work.

 

[makesends]

Illuminator said:
John Calvin is just about the best debater that Protestants have, in their entire history.

Oh, John Cavin was much more than just a great debater.

The problem with beating Calvin down is that John Calvin doesn't exactly represent modern Calvinism nor Reformed Theology, against whose [supposed] error, presumably, @Illuminator has launched his mission. Furthermore, most of those of us who think 'Calvinistically' don't hail back to Calvin, but to the Scriptures. Calvin didn't begin this.

 

[makesends]

Has anyone read this yet? If so, your thoughts?
Have you re-read it @Illuminator?

I've never read The Institutes. I've heard/read excerpts.

 

[makesends]

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

I hope my reply is helpful for readers who seek to understand the difference between the two theological systems and competing claims. May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...-of-john-calvin-introduction-master-list.html
Let's look at what we agree on:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/john-calvins-15-surprisingly-catholic-views

I read some of #1 (The Elect) and #4 (Primary” & “Secondary” Doctrines) from the first link.

What arguments I read to oppose The Institutes were drawn on mere assertion, presumptive assessments of Calvin's own history (i.e. Calvin's hypocrisy or actions contradictory to what he wrote) which assessments seemed to me also, for the most part, frankly, either mere assertions by the author or by actions contradictory to the author's use of what the Institutes imply. Some arguments were simple denial, without valid explanation.

I read not one thing that presented a substantive countering to Calvin's statements. But, granted, I didn't read much before giving up.

 

[JesusFan]

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

I hope my reply is helpful for readers who seek to understand the difference between the two theological systems and competing claims. May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...-of-john-calvin-introduction-master-list.html
Let's look at what we agree on:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/john-calvins-15-surprisingly-catholic-views

Rome holds and teaches a gospel that denies Pauline Justification

 

[Hobie]

I'm just going to comment on this one point for now.



If anyone desires to know what Calvin was talking about, oh his treatment on this, I'd advise actually reading it.

It may also be good to read (IV, 6:9) as well.

It is quite clear Calvin did not agree with or accept RC teachings.

Sorry Illuminator, you fail again.

There was a man of great influence that had infiltrated into the early church, but it is not the one the church of Rome claim as the apostle they followed, and yet this one is known to readers of the Bible. He came to Rome and by this time had become both rich and influential by the use of sorcery before the people, who were tricked by his work. "To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries." Acts 8:10-11 History tells us he came to be at Rome, as 'theologian Justin Martyr relates that Simon visited Rome'. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Simon-Magus

We also see the corruption of the church by pagan mystery religions and false religious system began very early some say even in Jerusalem at the time with Pentecost in 31 A.D. We also find in Pauls epistles, he says that "the mystery of iniquity doth already work:" (II Thess. 2:7 ). Paul wrote this in 50 or 51 AD The subterfuge to supplant the truth had already begun. In the later epistles of Paul and in those of the other Apostles, we find it gaining considerable momentum. So were did these mystery religions come from and how did they find their way into the early church. Well we find it in Simon Magnus, as he was one of the perpetrators of these false beliefs that crept into the early church.

We read in Acts the incident recorded by Luke, of the first encounter of the Apostles with Simon the Magus. The reason Luke describes the intentions of this man so thoroughly is the profound effect this man, and his followers, had on Gods Church. Actually, the time when Luke composed the book of Acts, he had caused the so much trouble and confusion that Luke had to show the people that he was not, as he claimed to be, a part of the Christian Church. All scholars realize that Luke tells about Simon's beginning because of his later notoriety and danger to the Church.

If we assume that Luke recorded this encounter of the Apostles with Simon Magus simply to show that "simony" was wrong, we miss the point completely. There is a score of places in other parts of the Bible to show the error of buying ecclesiastical gifts. Lets take a look closer look at Simon the Sorcerer or Magician, in Latin Simon Magnus. He was a Samaritan magus or follower of Zoroaster, magi who claimed the ability to read the stars, and manipulate the fate that the stars foretold and a convert to Christianity.

Notice the points Luke gives us. Simon was a Samaritan, and used unknown powers to do miracles and wonders (Acts 8:9).

The whole population of Samaria (both small and great) gave heed to him in verse 10. He was looked on as the greatest prophet in Samaria, the people in Samaria saw him as a "Great One", a god. And divine, "This man is the great power of God." (Acts 8:10).

Luke is also careful to inform us that Simon had become firmly established in Samaria in this manner and had practiced his powers "long time he had bewitched them with sorceries." in verse 11.

Simon had professed to accept the gospel, and was a baptized convert of Philip's. He continued with Philip after his profession of religion. He had also heard Peter and John preach Christ. He had been a witness when the Holy Ghost fell upon the people. But Simon had a love of another power, which we see in the prior bewitching he had done among the people. So he coveted more of it and wanted to add to his own gifts the power of imparting the Holy Spirit to men, that he might thus increase his influence over the people, as well as add to his income and popularity. He would still be able to hold the people as bewitched as in former times, and because of the gospel would become a greater man in the eyes of the people.

Simon even recognized that Christ's power was greater than his but wanted to be associated with that great name. Then he seeing the potential of the Christian religion waited until the apostles, Peter and John, came to Samaria and then offered to pay them money to get the power the apostles had.
Acts 8:18-21
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

It appears that after being cast out by the Apostles he came to Rome where he became influential and well known. He was a danger and Luke was clearly showing that Simon was not truly converted or a part of God's Church, even though in Rome, many people were being fooled that Simon was truly a Christian. Instead he begun a false religion which history says formed into Gnosticism, which did much to destroy the truth and faith among the early church.