![\"Calvin11\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/09\/Calvin11.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nPortrait of John Calvin (1858) by Ary Scheffer (1795-1858)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n Lo and behold, two Calvinists showed up in the combox of my paper,<\/span>\u00a0Top\u00a015\u00a0\u201cCatholic\u201d\u00a0Beliefs\u00a0of\u00a0John\u00a0Calvin<\/a>, and engaged in some of the worst, most wrongheaded, utterly illogical \u201cargumentation\u201d I have ever<\/em> seen in my 34 years of apologetics (which is really sayin\u2019<\/em> somethin\u2019). They are likely<\/span> anti-Catholics<\/a> (i.e., those who regard Catholicism as a non-Christian belief-system, which leads people to hell and cannot help save men\u2019s souls). The bizarre, relentlessly erroneous \u00a0nature of these \u201ccriticisms\u201d has to be seen to be believed. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The words of<\/span> \u201cAFBooks\u201d<\/a> will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>; those of<\/span> Lucas Hattenberger <\/a>(thanks for the real name for a change!) in green. Both were banned, not for merely disagreeing<\/em> and for being Calvinists<\/em>, but for massive, repeated, blatant violations of my clearly laid-out<\/span> \u201cDiscussion Policy.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0 As I\u2019ve stated over and over, anyone<\/em> is welcome here to argue whatever they like<\/em>, provided they remain civil, courteous, and civil. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n When\u00a0someone is in our house as our invited guest and is repeatedly rude and insulting to us as hosts or our guests, they are escorted to the door, aren\u2019t they? That\u2019s what I do here. Ethics don\u2019t magically change online, as if different rules of behavior and discourse apply. If you want to act like an ass and a jerk, this will not<\/em> be the place for you to do that.<\/span><\/p>\n * * * * *<\/span><\/p>\n The author of this article might do well to quote within context and to do proper exegesis of the cited passages before assigning a Roman Catholic designation to Calvin\u2019s works. For example, when Calvin referred to the Church, he noted it as the Church Universal (as one of the cited quotes indicated), He did not equate the Church Universal and the Roman Catholic Church as vast majority of the time. I also noticed a lot of the citations removed parts of a quote. Why? Context is very important in understanding a written work. That not only goes with the Bible but also with other works. Would we also believe that Calvin held Cicero as having divine authority given the number of times he quote Cicero? I believe this article has a number of hasty generalizations.<\/span><\/p>\n My argument was not that these things are all literally Catholic (which is why I put \u201cCatholic\u201d in quotes in the title). I made this very clear in the introduction:<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t intend to imply that Calvin agrees with Catholics in every jot and tittle of all the following categories. What is agreed-upon is what is actually stated in these particular comments, which may sometimes be a part of a doctrine or practice. Two parties can agree, for example, on the basic fundamentals of a question, and then go on to differ on more minute particulars that each feels are a logical extension of the premises.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This makes much of your comment a non sequitur<\/em>: not really directed at my paper, but rather, at a caricature<\/em> of it. I\u2019ve written two books (<\/span>one<\/a> \/ two<\/a>), replying to large portions of Calvin\u2019s Institutes<\/em>\u00a0line-by-line (including the entirety<\/em> of Book IV). I know what the man believed (just as I know<\/span> what Luther believed<\/a>, having studied him far more than Calvin, including two more books [<\/span>one <\/a>\/ two<\/a>] ).<\/span><\/p>\n We can always quibble over how much context is necessary. Sometimes it is a legitimate point; usually it is not, as in this instance. Anyone can go to the primary source to get more context, as it\u2019s all available online.<\/span><\/p>\n If you wish to critique any of my points, make a specific argument as to why it was an incorrect inclusion, rather than all these (highly questionable) generalizations, which is \u201cpoor man\u2019s argument.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Dialogue is such a lost art today that so often folks want to talk about<\/em>\u00a0a person and\/or his views (generalizing, subjectively) \u2014 as if he isn\u2019t even present \u2014 rather than with<\/em>\u00a0them (objective and specific and interactive). The former is postmodern subjective mush; the latter is classic dialogue.<\/span><\/p>\n Dave, again you show you have not read much of Calvin\u2019s works. If you did, you would not have made the above statement. Almost all of your statements are preceded by:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cCalvin thought\u2026\u201d<\/span> In none of the 15 cases you cite does any of the above apply. In fact, the opposite is true in every case. You remove quotations from \u201cThe Institutes\u201d from context and therefore misquote him, especially when in the same place he teaches just the opposite. I went over each one within context and previously gave a number of examples that prove you wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n There is no resemblance (substantial or otherwise) between what you claim and what Calvin taught. What you write is false through and through because you fail to read and quote from context plain and simple. Cherry picking quotes from a work without considering all the places Calvin teaches a certain doctrine is not a way of reading.<\/span><\/p>\n A particular example is Calvin\u2019s doctrine of regeneration. He did not ever hold to baptismal regeneration. You misinterpret him because you not only read the surrounding context but other places where he writes of regeneration (81 times). Your cherry-picking leads to a gross misreading. He held to spiritual regeneration.<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, you need to read Calvin more carefully and cease cherry-picking passages from his book for claiming that he taught something he never did.<\/span><\/p>\n Not all Calvinists agree with you about that. Here is one<\/span> basically agreeing with me <\/a>(three excerpts from an online paper):<\/span><\/p>\n Calvin held to a strong view of baptismal efficacy, e.g., what could easily be called \u201cbaptismal regeneration,\u201d \u201cbaptismal justification,\u201d or \u201cbaptismal adoption.\u201d He was thoroughly at home in the baptismal theology of Augustine.<\/span><\/p>\n For example, in Calvin\u2019s children\u2019s catechism, dating from 1538-9, he writes the following questions and answers: \u201cMy child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name? Yes, my father. How is this known to you? Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.\u201d Clearly, these statements are on the assurance end of the spectrum. But a bit later in the catechism, Calvin gives this sequence: \u201cHow did you come into this communion of the church? Through baptism. What is this baptism? It is the washing of regeneration and cleansing from sin.\u201d Here the efficacious, instrumental side comes to the fore. The two sides of his sacramental theology are regularly laced together in Institutes 4.14. For example, on page 1282, he says: \u201cIt is therefore certain that the Lord offers us mercy and the pledge of his grace both in his Sacred Word and in his sacraments\u2026We have determined, therefore, that sacraments are truly named the testimonies of God\u2019s grace and are like seals of the good will that he feels toward us, which by attesting that good will to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith.\u201d But in between the elipsis, he says, \u201cAccordingly, Paul, in speaking to believers, so deals with the sacraments as to include in them the communicating of Christ [Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 12:12-13].\u201d So in the sacraments, God confirms our faith by pledging good will towards us, but also effectually communicates Christ to us. We receive not just cognitive assurance, but Christ himself!<\/span><\/p>\n Readers of Calvin on baptism should note two things in particular. One, he uses Augustine repeatedly and with almost total approval. Never does he criticize Augustine for ascribing too much efficacy to baptism. And yet, no serious scholar would question that Augustine held to some form of baptismal regeneration. Two, note that Calvin regularly and without qualification applies passages such Rom. 6:2ff, 1 Pt. 3:20-21, etc. to water baptism. He does not spiritualize away the baptismal referent, as later \u201cProtestant Gnostics\u201d have been known to do.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Calvin did not accept baptismal regeneration. You will not read that from the Institutes; and I doubt if you have ever read Calvin\u2019s Institutes given your remarks. Calvin wrote of the regeneration by the Holy Spirit.<\/span><\/p>\n You also do not understand how Calvin uses figure of speech in terms of the Eucharist or Lords\u2019 supper. You are wrong twice. Do you know how to read?<\/span><\/p>\n Calvin (like Luther) not infrequently contradicts himself. In this instance, he accepted baptismal regeneration. In others he does not. That\u2019s why this was the \u201ccutest\u201d of my 15 points; and I was waiting for someone like you to show up to make this point. Thanks! Here is another Calvinist claiming that Calvin\u2019s view on the sacramental nature of baptism may be interpreted in the way that I have.\u00a0Reformed scholar Peter Leithart<\/span> cites Calvin from his Antidote to the Council of Trent<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Then he comments:<\/span><\/p>\n Calvin does not say, \u201cBaptism doesn\u2019t remit sins.\u201d He agrees that it does; he is completely Nicene. He also says that \u201cregeneration\u201d or renewal is initiated by baptism, though it continues throughout the life of the baptized. His argument with the Tridentine decree is not about the efficacy of baptism but with the question of whether concupiscence counts as sin (he says it does).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Cite primary sources instead of secondary ones. Calvin\u2019s \u201cInstitutes\u201d as I noted states just the opposite.<\/span><\/p>\n For being a \u201cRoman Catholic,\u201d you engage in attacking and censorship rather than presenting arguments on the merits. Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine would be perplexed by your approach. They would consider it very sad indeed.<\/span><\/p>\n Another dense miscomprehension of how logical argument flows . . .<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve engaged in lengthy debates with Calvinists on<\/span> Calvin\u2019s view of the Eucharist<\/a>, and am quite familiar with his position. Thus, I was very precise in my wording in that section, writing: \u201ca profound causal connection between Holy Eucharist and salvation:\u201d I did not assert that he accepted literal presence or real or substantial presence, as Catholics do.<\/span><\/p>\n But in this one respect<\/em>, he agrees with us.<\/span><\/p>\n Read my Introduction again. That alone (i.e., understood) would have prevented a lot of the sheer nonsense and insults you are throwing my way.<\/span><\/p>\n False. You fail to read Calvin on regeneration (81 times) and lift a single quote from context.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cFor he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament\u201d (IV, 15, 2). Read the entire section.<\/span><\/p>\n In section 4, Calvin speaks of baptism as a SIGN not the means of regeneration. You have also not done your homework on Calvin\u2019s teaching on baptism (mentioned well over 100 times in \u201cThe Institutes.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Calvin DOES NOT contradict himself. You simply MISREAD him.<\/span><\/p>\n So do Calvinist scholars or pastors. I just cited two\u00a0above.\u00a0I have subsequently cited several others [see below], and also stated that I could easily produce several more regarding many of the issues.<\/span><\/p>\n Dave, you are the one misunderstanding Calvin.<\/span><\/p>\n Then I do it in league with many Calvinist scholars. Take, e.g., the perpetual virginity of Mary. I<\/span> cited several Reformed scholars in agreement <\/a>in a paper of mine.\u00a0You said all 15<\/em> of my points were dead wrong. Is it your claim (it must be) that Calvin was also an advocate of contraception? By all means, try to prove that!<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n\u201cCalvin believed\u2026\u201d<\/span>
\n\u201cCalvin accepted\u2026\u201d<\/span>
\n\u201cCalvin taught\u2026\u201d<\/span>
\n\u201cCalvin approved\u2026\u201d<\/span>
\n\u201cCalvin held\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n\n