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)