Hi there,

I just wanted to take a sampling of opinions on Whether you believe Calvin was ever fundamentally wrong on a particular topic in his writings? (besides the obvious differences regarding creedo vs paedo baptism)


please feel free to post.


thanks.

__________________
Dennis Oh
Toronto, Canada
"The gospel is only good news if it gets there in time" -- Carl F. H. Henry

Fundamentally wrong in any basic area of theology? I can't think of any fundamental errors espoused in Calvin's teachings, unless we want to step outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy. It is certainly true, however, that Calvin (as well as all of his most notable contemporaries [who are frequently more influential than him on many topics], such as Vermigli, Bullinger, Viret, Musculus, Melanchthon, Hyperius, etc.) are underdeveloped on many topics, as they stood but at the beginning of a new era in the catholic tradition. Thus, in many (probably *most*) areas, the thought of Calvin and his contemporaries has been improved upon; and there are some areas in which most of the tradition has differed (not just developed further) with respect to nuance (such as certain elements of Calvin's doctrine of the Trinity), but not fundamental substance.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I certainly think he was wrong in some places. And no, I don't think you step outside confessional orthodoxy to maintain that.

__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

Ben, that's why I emphasized **fundamentally** wrong in any **basic** area of theology. I thought it assumed as a matter of course that the learned man made errors. Note also that I indicated, "I can't think of any" *fundamental* errors in his thought. There may indeed be some that are not coming to mind at the moment. Suggestions?

I think that the following point by Gerstner needs to be made...

John Gerstner: the Protestant church has provided for authority so that decisions can be rendered when necessary, but has avoided the error of investing this authority with infallibility. The Protestant church, not being infallible, can err, has erred, will err. There is one error, however, which it has not made and that is the greatest of them all—the error of thinking it cannot err. John H. Gerstner, A Primer on Roman Catholicism (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995), p. 33.

John Calvin was susceptible to error because he too was a fallen sinner. Unlike non-Protestants, we the Reformed never ascribe the attribute of infallibility to men.

Augustine (354-430): God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible. NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 89, § 4.
Latin text: Deus solus securus jurat, quia falli non potest. See In Psalmum LXXXVIII Enarratio, Sermo I, PL 37:1122.

Augustine (354-430): But let these several members which have their place there, in their kind and place and measure, “follow Christ;” let them “deny themselves;” that is, let them presume nothing of themselves: let them “take up their cross,” that is, let them in the world endure for Christ’s sake whatever the world may bring upon them. Let them love Him, who Alone doth not deceive, who Alone is not deceived, Alone deceiveth not; let them love Him, for that is true which He doth promise. But because He doth not give at once, faith wavers. Hold on, persevere, endure, bear delay and thou hast borne the cross. NPNF1: Vol. VI, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 46 [XCVI], §9.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329/330-389): A disagreement arose between Basil and his predecessor in the government of this church. It is better to pass over in silence its origin and character, but the fact remains. Eusebius [i.e., of Caesarea] was in many respects a man not without nobility, and remarkable for piety, as the persecution of that time and the opposition to him clearly indicated, yet he developed a natural antipathy for Basil. Momus [i.e., the Greek god of grumbling and fault-finding] seizes not only upon the common crowd but on the best of men, since it belongs to God alone to be completely infallible [i.e., strictly not stumbling; hence, in a moral sense free from offense, without fault – cf. Friberg Lexicon] and uninfluenced by the passions. FC, Vol. 22, Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Ambrose, On Saint Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea, §28 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 51.
Greek text: Ἐγένετό τις πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα διαφορὰ τῷ πρὸ τούτου καθηγεμόνι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας· τὸ μὲν ὅθεν καὶ ὅπως σιωπᾶν ἄμεινον, πλὴν ἐγένετο· ἀνδρὶ τἆλλα μὲν οὐκ ἀγεννεῖ καὶ θαυμαστῷ τὴν εὐσέβειαν, ὡς ἔδειξεν ὁ τότε διωγμός, καὶ ἡ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔνστασις, ὅμως δέ τι παθόντι πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἀνθρώπινον· ἅπτεται γὰρ οὐ τῶν πολλῶν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀρίστων ὁ Μῶμος, ὡς μόνον ἂν εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ παντελῶς ἄπταιστον καὶ ἀνάλωτον πάθεσι. Monitum in Orationem XLIII, Funebris oratio in laudem Basilii Magni Caeareae in Cappadocia episcope, §28, PG 36:533.

DTK

__________________
Sola Scriptura est norma normans non normata
D. T. King, pastor
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland
Augustine (354-430): Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, §1.

Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He was wrong. This leads to other errors as well, like who wrote the book of Jude.

There, I answered the question.

__________________
Pastor Nathan Eshelman, Los Angeles, CA
Reformed Presbyterian Church
PRESBYTERIAN THOUGHTS
Los Angeles Reformed Presbyterian Church
RPCLA Sermons Online
Puritan Reformed Seminary

I don't recall any place where Calvin said he believed in this.

Authorship of canonical books should not be attributed to figments of men's imaginations.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Hmmm. I always thought that Luther accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary (Luther's Works, 22:214-215; cf. Pelikan) and that Zwingli did. In fact, if you read German you can check it out yourself at http://books.google.com/books?vid=06...nen%22&f=false. "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)" But, Calvin??? Hmmm. I don't think so. But, what do I know?

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I think it might help to clarify "fundamentally wrong". That seems to distinguish it from ordinary wrongness, but of course, as Paul mentioned above, Calvin was no heretic.

Why are you interested in cataloguing Calvin's errors?

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

Others would disagree, but I believe Calvin was wrong in accepting Roman Catholic Baptism as valid, especially as he stated that the Roman Mass was an invalid Supper.

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

Rev. Greco,

While driving, I was trying to think of any of the more important or visible areas of Calvin's teaching which might be controversial among the Reformed today. I hadn't thought of that one. Thanks!

This doesn't merely assert Calvin was wrong; it positively unchurches him.

Um...no it doesn't.

Baptism is a sacrament for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church. If you don't regard Calvin's baptism was valid, then yes, you have unchurched him.

This is not a thread on baptism, so for that reason I have not written extensively on this, or included the distinctions pre- and post-Trent, or the extensive arguments of Thornwell, Dabney and other theologians. But that does not mean that I am not aware of them, or a search cannot find at least a dozen threads in which they are discussed.

Simple assertions don't make significant theological arguments go away.

Your simple assertion was, "I believe Calvin was wrong in accepting Roman Catholic Baptism as valid." Do you have a qualification you would like to make to that assertion?

OK. Even though I have made these "qualifications" before, and even though this is not a thread on the validity of baptism, because it is impossible to state this disagreemenbt with Calvin without upsetting those who favor Roman baptism (you will note that I was not arguing that my position was *correct* above, just stating an example of where I disagree with Calvin), I will repeat what can be found in a search at least a half-dozen times. Not asking you to agree with it here, just stating it:

First, Calvin states that it is unlawful to depart from a true church:

Then Calvin gives his reasons for instructing others (correctly, I might add, in my opinion) from departing from Rome. Namely, that it is NOT a true church:

So for Calvin, Rome is so much not a true Church that Christians can lawfully depart from her. She does not have the marks of the Church, including the preaching of the Word, Church government (i.e. discipline) and the sacraments (specifically the Supper).

The only thing that Rome has, according to Calvin, is valid (yet irregular) baptism. This is contradictory to me. Calvin appears to tell me (out of one side of his mouth) that I must leave Rome because it is not a true Church, not good enough to give me the true Word, true discipline or the true Supper, but (out of the other side of his mouth) tell me that I may have my child baptized there with no fear.

That is where I will leave it, since this forum (the Wading Pool) and this particular thread (which is not about baptism) is really not the appropriate place to discuss this, and there are at least a dozen past threads where this issue has been hashed and re-hashed. But lest I be thought lax in answering the question posed to me, I have repeated myself briefly here.

I believe he was weak on his understanding of the 4th commandment, as well as on the matter of remarriage.....

__________________
Bert Mulder
Elder of the First Protestant Reformed Church of Edmonton
Edmonton Alberta Canada

You have stated yourself clearly. Thankyou. But I wasn't asking for an explanation of Calvin's position nor where you thought he was inconsistent. I claimed you unchurched Calvin. You said there were distinctions to be made. I asked if you had a distinction to make to your simple assertion that he was wrong on the validity of Romish baptism. If there is no distinction to be made to that assertion it appears to me that he has been unchurched.

It's also easy for us in this generation to look back at this greatest theologian and think he had all the context and knowledge of history we do.

Mr. Calvin risked his life, and poured out his life to write a systematic theology of Scripture- with Scripture being interpreted by the whole of Scripture. He even translated biblical manuscripts to get to that.

It's clear from the times in which he lived, he did not seek to create a new religion or a new church, but to reform the one true Church of God back to the Christianity of the Apostles. He saw himself as being used to renovate the church back to governance by the Scripture wholly, like the early church. That context might help us understand why he did not publicly advocate getting baptized again because he was dealing with other notions of what baptism was in other quarters.

So, while Mr. Calvin meekly and barely defended his not getting re-baptized (or possibly better to say baptized validly for the first time), as he was baptized and "tonsured" as a youth in the Roman system, one has to understand he was also refuting the Anabaptist practices. He was dealing with and refuting their errors also, directly and in a sustained way.

Mr. Calvin was not out to overturn everything in the existing church for the sake of overturning it, but to thoroughly reform it back to Scripture.

While he got farther in his modest lifetime than anyone had, and did more to systematize it than anyone since Augustine, he didn't get to everything.

He got to more than anyone ever had, but he didn't get to everything.

Mr. Beza followed him and others built on his work to further refine it.

You can't fully answer a question like your without the context of history at that time.

You might find helpful in the preface to the PCA version of the Westminster Standards, a concise overview of the reformation. (This is a paper addition, not on-line)
CEP Bookstore - WESTMINSTER COF & CATECHISMS W/SCRIPTURE LOOSE L

Also, the Westminster Standards recognize the infallible even of collected bodies of great theologians. How much more their individual members:

So, was Mr. Calvin perfect?
No.

And he recognized that about himself.

But he was very, very good.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

Thanks for your responses everyone.

I guess I wanted to perform a simple experiment to ensure that we as Reformed thinkers were still employing our critical faculties and living out our confession of sola scriptura, as best as our rationality and consciences allows us. it's his 500th birthday afterall, and many rightly honour Calvin as the venerable articulator of our reformed faith, and it's tempting to come close in assuming that he was essentially infallible, citing him as almost another magisterial authority. Nothing would be farther from his own intentions, I'm sure, and ironically counter-intuitive to our own Reformed standards.

On the point of Mary's perpetual virginity, can someone briefly share why Reformed christians should reject this?

thanks.