Into the Wardrobe

After coming across a reading plan on the Web, I've decided to spend next year making my way through the Institutes. I wasn't aware that 2009 marks the 500th anniversary of the Calvin's birth, but it makes for a nice piece of symmetry.

From my limited understanding of the subject, I would say I am a Calvinist, but I'm interested to see if my opinions have changed by this time next year.

So has anyone here read right through the Institutes, and if so, what did you make of them?

Almost right through. I got about three quarters of the way. And I read the last part on civil government.
I find him good when I can get into the issue he is dealing with. But reading cover to cover did not really work for me. I find the commentaries more interesting but even there he has to be pursuing something that has grabbed me. For example I have always been interested in Daniel and I found his take on some parts of that very refreshing and different to most later protestantism. On the theme of the atonement, something which he is known for having taken a new approach to I found him quite tentative - 'in some mysterious way God loved us even when he hated us'. It's a long time since I read a lot of him. Let me know how you go.

Lewis by the way said he had no sympathy for Calvinism but when he read Calvin after reading his followers he thought Calvin was a much better thinker.

What a great website. I thought eventually this topic would come up. I don't mean calvinism but rather whether anyone has read Calvin. I've been discussing calvinism with people for years and the more they explain themselves the less I understand. So several years ago, out of frustration, I decided to read Calvin's "Institutes". I'm on the last book which I've taken a break from to read Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God". Back to Calvin. I'm reading the Beveridge translation. I read the first three books with a pen and highlighter in hand so I could scrall notes and questions in the margins.

I found comments on divine providence like: "God causes all events whatsoever" multiple times. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt until similar quotes popped up multiple times. In reformed theology they talk about secondary causes and Calvin talks about that as well but since God causes all events whatsoever in Calvin's view, secondary causes are like the mousetrap game. God turns the crank and everything that happens after that is unavoidable. Therfore, there's no difference in the two types of causes: primary or secondary.

But this isn't the fundamental flaw in his thinking. Calvin's idea of divine providence has the same problem that CSL pointed out in materialism. If we are nothing more than how atoms and energy interract than on what basis do I say something is true or not. It's just how atoms moved in my brain today. Calvin has a similar problem. If my thoughts are caused (put there) by God then he may, for his purposes, put incorrect thoughts in my mind or correct thoughts and I would never be the wiser.

I was disappointed because I expected Calvin to be clearer on the providence issue than his followers. At around book 2 I began to read it more as someone might read "Mein Kampf": to see how a brilliant mind goes haywire. Calvin isn't Hitler at all. He was a decent man and a fighter for what he believed in but I think he's the example of a brilliant mind derailed. I also think of his theology as something a brilliant teenager would come up with.

Anyway read it and see what you think.

Regards, Tom

p.s. I found his use of poetry to prove things to be fundamentally flawed. For example in Job he takes the scene between Satan and God as literal proof that Satan has zero (none, not a whit) freedom of action. Calvin doesn't understand the poet's use of dramatic devices such as this. You'll find him misunderstanding the Psalms as well.