Reading through the institututes.

[Josheb]

No, not at all. And, I don’t believe scripture teaches baptismal regeneration

Just making sure @JesusFan understands Post 37 correctly . Wouldn't want him thinking Calvinism teaches baptizing an infant in water saves the child from sin, or that salvation can be obtained by works.

 

[JesusFan]

I hold to infant baptism.

Which is fine, as I do not tend to get "heated" on to what would be to me a secondary issue, as though while I hold to believers Baptism, know reasoning behind other view

 

[JesusFan]

Hmmm... I'm curious.

Do you realize that this op is specifically, and exclusively, about Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion"? Do you the thread is not about Calvin's theology as a whole, Beeke, MacArthur, Sproul, or Non-Baptist Reformed? Do you realize that in the space of five single-statement posts the original topic has been ignored.



Calvin's "Insititutes..." is not representative of his larger theology. This is a common misconception regarding Calvin and Calvinism. Calvin set out writing The Institutes in an effort to reform Catholicism, not establish a systematic theology. The Institutes was originally only six chapters in length. It grew in length and diversity of content as Calvin aged, left the RCC, and began addressing other religious/theological matters. Even in its final edition, at 80 chapters, it does not express Calvin's theology anywhere near as well as his commentaries (which cover at least 50 of the Bible's 66 books). Calvin was a prolific writers and substantive exegete. His "Institutes...." is important primarily for its historical value as both a seminal work in religious writing, and as a turning point in Christian thought. For those reasons, it stands on its own. It does not stand on its own as an exposition of Calvin's larger theology.

Good points, as many times we tend to see that as his main exposition on theology proper, yet he seemed to be writing it almost as a primer to pastors on how to teach and live the scriptures out, and would indeed also group in his commentaries a to what he really thought on the scriptures. Think also many confuse what he held with to hat we call as Calvinism today, as that was built upon and enlarged on His theology, from beza and others afterwards, as he provide the skeleton and they fleshed it out