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

 

[JesusFan]

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.

I have questions on that, as some times reading some such as a NT Wright who would hold that water baptism is indeed the entry point way into the Kingdom, to others who would identify it as being what circumcision was in the OT, as means to identify those of the Covenant . I tend to see infant baptism as what we Baptist hold as infant dedication, pledging to god to raise up the child in the community of faith and teaching them, with hope that will one dy get saved by the Lord

 

[Josheb]

I tend to see infant baptism as what we Baptist hold as infant dedication, pledging to god to raise up the child in the community of faith and teaching them, with hope that will one day get saved by the Lord

That is very much consistent with the formal position asserted by the Presbyterian sects and all of the Reformed Associated congregations of which I have been a part. We dedicate our child* within the existing covenant relationship of which God has monergistically chosen, called, and dragged us into, relying on His promises relevant to that covenant - the covenant which is inherently Christologically salvific.












* I emphasize "our" child because 1) s/he is not really our child. S/he is God's and we are simply stewards for what remains of out life, and 2) those who are not saved, not members of God's Christologically salvific covenant are just going through the motions of a ritual that for them lacks substance. Intellectual assent is not salvific and those who do not possess and sincere belief are just posing. They might even be mocking God unwittingly.
.

 

[Josheb]

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

Yep. Calvin started out attempting to correct the RCC and make known to his readers real and perceived problems existing therein. Since this op began I've been re-reading The Institutes. I'm about halfway through and just gone through his refutation of Osiander. It's a curious section because Osiander is now consider a Lutheran theologian. That makes Calvin's commentary an early split within the early Reformation and most of that is lost on the average reader. Who's Osiander? Who's Beza? Much of Institutes is not new or controversial to modern Christians, even among the non-Reformed, but in its day it was considered worthy of persecution. Despite the division just point of debarking just mentioned, The Institutes is very much a product of the 95 Theses and yet the angel in the details of Calvinism are best found in his commentaries. That is where the strawmen against Calvinism are most easily refuted.