Featured Calvinism started with John Calvin True or false?

Calvin's Christianae Religionis Institutio (Christian Religious Instruction) was published in Latin in 1536 and in French 1541. There was a second (possibly third) edition published in Latin in 1559 and in French in 1560.

William Whittingham, an English Reformed scholar, who lived in Europe during the anti-Protestant reign of "Bloody" Mary, and brother-in-law to John Calvin, may have provided much input to the later revisions of Calvin's work.

That and the various translations, and translations of translations, probably accounts for many of the seeming conflict between this and his commentary series. Also of note is the target of the various writings. The commentaries were aimed at the laymen in the churches, but his Christianae Religionis Institutio assumed some theological training, so obviously go much deeper.

 

Christ.

 

The Magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc.) were deeply influenced by Augustine on matters of soteriology.

 

Sometimes people develop a theology that emphasizes things in a way that was not emphasized in the past. For example, if I were to reform the SBC (just using that because I'm SBC) then I may highlight certain things that were not previously clearly in focus, yet also not denied, by SBC doctrine. John Calvin introduced several aspects that, while not necessarily denied, were not of primary focus in previous generations. His doctrine of penal substitution, for example, did not match Luther's substitution theory. It's not that Calvin "invented" something, but he did articulate it in a way so as to introduce "Calvinism" for the first time. And the five points of Calvinism, as well as the more narrow TULIP, are dependent on Calvin's system as a whole (if you look at at, even if you disagree, you should at least be able to see how each part is dependent on the other). So I think it fair to say Calvinism originated with Calvin, but the origins that form each doctrine come from Scripture.

 

I disagree. TULIP (an acronym that dates only to the early 20th century) is based on the Five Heads of Doctrine which resulted from the Canons of the Synod of Dort in 1619, long (55 years) after Calvin's death in 1564.

The divines of Dort were influenced by Augustine of Hippo (died in 430) who was, of course, greatly influenced by the Apostle Paul whom he called his "beloved example."

I disagree. If you mean by "Calvinism" monergistic soteriology then Calvin had nothing to do with "Calvinism" for, as you say "the origins that form each doctrine come from Scripture."

That is one of many reasons I try to eschew the terms "Calvinism" and "Calvinist" because as soon as I use those terms I am accused of sprinkling babies, church authority over civil government, and other absurdities inherent in Calvin's writings.

 

TULIP is not an acronym that accurately and fully represents the “Five Points” as expressed in the Canons of Dort. What I mean is that TULIP is in one way vague, but in another used to exclude as “moderate” those who believe Christ is the Savior of all mankind but in a particular way the Savior of the elect (that the Cross was a provision for all mankind but an effective atonement for those given the Son). It is in this way based on the Canons of Dort (I’ve used the “Five Points” as you’ve used the “Five Heads of Doctrine”), but is removed from the Canons.

The Canons of Dort were in reaction to the Five Articles, which represented the beliefs of the Remonstrants, which in turn represented the doctrines taught by James Arminius (after his death). Arminius’ original objection was to divine predestination as systematized by Theodore Beza (Calvin’s student).

TULIP, the Canons of Dort, and Calvinism as systematized under Beza are not the Calvinism of John Calvin. But they are dependent on Calvin’s system. Apart from John Calvin’s contributions to Reformed doctrine there would be no “Calvinism” today.

I do not believe that “Calvinism” today would exist outside of Beza’s systematization of Calvin’s work and without John Calvin’s formulation of Penal Substitution. The truths may be there (as they were in the early church writings), but it wouldn’t be “Calvinism”.

For example, the OP links Luther with Calvin in affirming “Calvinism”. But just accepting a doctrine of total depravity, unconditional election, eternal security, ect. does not make one a Calvinist. I do not believe “Calvinism” fits into any theory of atonement except Penal Substitution (which was John Calvin’s contribution, and not what Luther held).

The reason I say the “origins that form each doctrine come form Scripture” is that the difference is not Scripture but interpretation or systematizing those interpretations (the focus, emphasis, ect.). As evidence, consider how Calvinism changed with Beza’s priority of Divine Sovereignty. The elements didn’t change, but by emphasis the theology itself took on a distinctive flavor.

 

I may agree had you used "contextualized" rather than "expanded on".

I believe that there were changes and nuances throughout history and that we can see throughout the development of these theologies a sense of the environment through which they came. I don’t mean one is right or one is wrong, but that often the emphasis on a truth is reactionary. What we end up with, IMHO, are often theological differences that originate with the same Scriptures but separate as one truth is emphasized over another.

For example, the early writings of the church seem to focus more on the Atonement as Christ’s victory over death/evil with the aspect of substitution falling into this ultimate context. Calvin seem to focus on the appeasement of God’s wrath through the substitutionary death of Christ with victory over death/evil falling within this ultimate context. Neither denies the other, but the focuses are different. I suspect this is due to the circumstances in which each articulated their doctrines.

 

What most Arminians fail to realize is that James Arminius was a 4 point "Calvinist." His only difference was "Unconditional Election." He believed Election was conditioned on God's foreknowledge of a person's faith in Christ. (Which, in my opinion, creates a terrible and unresolvable paradox.)

 

LOL! Augustine's comments have absolutely nothing to do with Total Depravity. Augustine is saying that the nature which comes from God cannot be corrupted.

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

 

No. God can do anything.