Has anyone read "Institutes of the Christian Religion"?

[jas84173]

I hesitantly read the book recently by John Calvin, mainly because I wanted to understand his view of theology. I found it somewhat contradictory in many ways, for one he claims the Pope has no authority yet he does? I feel as though he viewed himself as some sort of prophet or redeemer and walked away from the book feeling even stronger about my Catholic faith. To me it was just a person who was a second generation Protestant who went even further than Luther did.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I hesitantly read the book recently by John Calvin, mainly because I wanted to understand his view of theology. I found it somewhat contradictory in many ways, for one he claims the Pope has no authority yet he does? I feel as though he viewed himself as some sort of prophet or redeemer and walked away from the book feeling even stronger about my Catholic faith. To me it was just a person who was a second generation Protestant who went even further than Luther did.

I have not, but that pretty much sums up my thoughts about Calvin and Calvinism.

 

[PolliceVerso]

I hesitantly read the book recently by John Calvin, mainly because I wanted to understand his view of theology. I found it somewhat contradictory in many ways, for one he claims the Pope has no authority yet he does? I feel as though he viewed himself as some sort of prophet or redeemer and walked away from the book feeling even stronger about my Catholic faith. To me it was just a person who was a second generation Protestant who went even further than Luther did.

I have read the Institutes, as well as some of his commentaries (especially Romans). In terms of soteriology, I believe he is largely correct. Some of his other views are incorrect and antiquated, and he didn’t exactly practice what he preached in terms of his relationship with Geneva. That said, he is a theologian par excellence in terms of developing a systematic theology, and even if you disagree with some of his conclusions I think most Catholics would agree with most of his beliefs. And his defense of infant Baptism is as good or better than anything you will find written by Catholic theologians.

 

[Hatikvah]

I… for one he claims the Pope has no authority yet he does? I feel as though he viewed himself as some sort of prophet or redeemer… To me it was just a person who was a second generation Protestant who went even further than Luther did.

Well, I think he had the same view as Luther, except more extreme. Luther claimed, among other things, that the papacy lost its authority because of its rejection of sola fide (“the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls,” he said), its involvement with political affairs, corrupt bishops and sometimes popes, simony, and so on.

Calvin entirely rejected the papacy, going straight to the identification of the pope as antichrist (not the antichrist like the Beast in Revelation, but “antichrist,” simply meaning anyone who is against the faith of Christ). Remember, Calvin and Luther were not only religious figures but also political ones.

Calvin had a very strict, moralistic hand over Geneva when he ruled it. People were frequently exiled and one father was jailed for two weeks for not naming his son Abraham, but rather some New Testament name.

Yes, Calvin was more extreme. Luther kind of just modified Catholicism with St. Augustine’s ideas, St. Thomas Aquinas’s political ideas, and some earlier writings. Calvin rejected everything, calling any reverence of the saints whatsoever “idolatry” and really saw what he could do. He still has this effect from the grave. Calvinism, for some odd reason, is increasingly popular (carm.org and gotquestions.com, two of the most popular Protestant apologetics websites, are both Calvinist).

This is a good Catholic source.

 

[Entwhistler]

I read some of it. It was a while back, but I remember getting rather irritated with how many times Calvin contradicted himself.

 

[total_Catholic]

Well, I think he had the same view as Luther, except more extreme. Luther claimed, among other things, that the papacy lost its authority because of its rejection of sola fide (“the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls,” he said), its involvement with political affairs, corrupt bishops and sometimes popes, simony, and so on.

Calvin entirely rejected the papacy, going straight to the identification of the pope as antichrist (not the antichrist like the Beast in Revelation, but “antichrist,” simply meaning anyone who is against the faith of Christ). Remember, Calvin and Luther were not only religious figures but also political ones.

Calvin had a very strict, moralistic hand over Geneva when he ruled it. People were frequently exiled and one father was jailed for two weeks for not naming his son Abraham, but rather some New Testament name.

Yes, Calvin was more extreme. Luther kind of just modified Catholicism with St. Augustine’s ideas, St. Thomas Aquinas’s political ideas, and some earlier writings. Calvin rejected everything, calling any reverence of the saints whatsoever “idolatry” and really saw what he could do. He still has this effect from the grave. Calvinism, for some odd reason, is increasingly popular (carm.org and gotquestions.com, two of the most popular Protestant apologetics websites, are both Calvinist).

This is a good Catholic source.

Calvinism isn’t nearly as popular as it once was, especially here in the South. Arminism is the flavor, even among the Baptists who were once strict Calvinists. Arminism helped fuel the Methodist from which sprang the Wesleyan Church and the even more charismatic pentecostal churches.

A man can rack his brains reading the C vs A squabbles. Thank God for the Magisterium.

 

[RPRPsych]

I hesitantly read the book recently by John Calvin, mainly because I wanted to understand his view of theology. I found it somewhat contradictory in many ways, for one he claims the Pope has no authority yet he does? I feel as though he viewed himself as some sort of prophet or redeemer and walked away from the book feeling even stronger about my Catholic faith. To me it was just a person who was a second generation Protestant who went even further than Luther did.

I read large chunks of it back in 2009.

It helped me realize that I really ought to stick to my Catholic faith, because the alternatives were far worse.

I especially liked his section on the Mass. Talk about missing the point entirely.

 

[steido01]

I hesitantly read the book recently by John Calvin, mainly because I wanted to understand his view of theology. I found it somewhat contradictory in many ways, for one he claims the Pope has no authority yet he does? I feel as though he viewed himself as some sort of prophet or redeemer and walked away from the book feeling even stronger about my Catholic faith. To me it was just a person who was a second generation Protestant who went even further than Luther did.

You write as if Luther was the source and Calvin an unintended, later product. That’s incorrect. Luther and Calvin led separate, somewhat concurrent reformations. Luther is not, for all the politicking and polemicisms, the “father” of “Protestantism.”

Keep in mind that where Calvin thought he was founding a new, purer church, Lutherans believed they were simply the most accurate continuation of the greater church catholic. This is no clearer than in their disagreement on the Eucharist, where Luther himself said, “I’d rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the Enthusiasts (with whom Calvin found agreement).”

I can’t speak for Calvin’s view of the Papacy, but I know that the Lutheran view is significantly less hostile to it than much of Protestantism. Lutherans may use some little “antichrist” language (not the big “Antichrist”), but it is conditional and only applies to the office, not the man himself. Luther still acknowledged the pope as a bishop, and many Lutherans acknowledged/acknowledge him as the first among equals, but consider him heterodox or heretical, and therefore not properly excercising his post. Even the most bombastic Lutheran text against the papacy, the Smalcald Articles, ends with Melancthon (the author of the Augsburg Confession, the heart of Lutheranism) saying; “I, Philip Melanchthon, approve the foregoing Articles as pious and Christian. But in regard to the Pope, I hold that, if he would admit the Gospel, we might also permit him, for the sake of peace and the common concord of Christendom, to exercise, by human right, his present jurisdiction over the bishops, who are now or may hereafter be under his authority.” To my knowledge, Calvin was never willing to make such a concession.

 

[Third_Day]

I have read the Institutes, as well as some of his commentaries (especially Romans). In terms of soteriology, I believe he is largely correct. Some of his other views are incorrect and antiquated, and he didn’t exactly practice what he preached in terms of his relationship with Geneva. That said, he is a theologian par excellence in terms of developing a systematic theology, and even if you disagree with some of his conclusions I think most Catholics would agree with most of his beliefs. And his defense of infant Baptism is as good or better than anything you will find written by Catholic theologians.

Was it Luther or Calvin that came up with penal substitution and the imputation of Christ’s righteous to a believer by faith alone?

No one in Church history or in scripture taught that and yet those doctrines are the bedrock of Protestantism

 

[Kielbasi]

Institutes is a 1500 page treatise on theology written in Latin.

So, no I haven’t read it, sort of intimidating.

Hope it was worthwhile to whoever did make it through