> No one knows the one-hundredth part of sin that clings to his soul. This quote is [frequently attributed to Calvin](https://www.google.com/search?q=No+one+knows+the+one-hundredth+part+of+sin+that+clings+to+his+soul+calvin) , but I can't find a specific citation or reference. Did Calvin actually say this, or something like it? Or has it been misattributed to him, perhaps as someone else's pithy summary of Calvin's teachings? Can anyone trace the origin of this quote or notion?

I'm interested in exploring a theological understanding of work from a Reformed perspective. Most of the literature I find tends to be sociological, especially Weberian, but I'm specifically looking for theological treatments grounded in the Reformed tradition. Ideally, I’d like recommendations that are not politically driven or overtly proselytizing, but instead focus on biblical and theological foundations for work, vocation, and labor in Reformed thought. What are some good books or authors to start with?

It is my understand that John Calvin arrived at Geneva in 1537; and then, because of various theological disagreements and conflicts, was exiled a year later. Then, some years later (1541 I think it was), he not only returned to Geneva, but had been *invited* to do so. QUESTION: Why was John Calvin invited to return to Geneva?

I'm trying to find Calvin's commentary on Psalm 88 in his original Latin.

I believe God did not coerce the thief to the right to confess that Jesus is the Messiah, he did it because he loved the truth and out of his free will, the thief to the left also did not mock Jesus because the devil incited him but most probably because he wanted to appease the crowd. The actions of these two thieves , one in repentance and the other in rebellion caused them to go to different places in the afterlife. How do Calvinists who say God has already chosen the elect and our free will doesn't matter defend this? Also if God interferes with your free will to achieve a result where you go to heaven, then the race of salvation is not fair, or if He interferes with your free will to make you go to hell, makes him a crucial factor in your condemnation, which is not the case .

Peter Enns was expelled from the Westminster Seminary due to this positions judged too liberal in his book *Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament* (2005). This article contains a comment of this affair, and provides "two reports authored by the conservative members of the Westminster faculty, in which they explain why Enns' views are in conflict with biblical and historic Christian teachings on the nature of Scripture." While Peter Enns views can still nonetheless be considered conservative (1 ), there is especially a passage where he expresses his views on Calvinism, which seem to me to be pretty compatible with the orthodox current of protestantism of which principle is to stick with the first reformers (Calvin, Luther) methods and thoughts. Here is the passage, from a long article on Calvinism published on Biologos: > In its best iterations, Calvinism is a “third way” that negotiates between the extremes of (1) a dismissal of Scripture as God’s word because of it obvious human dimension, and (2) a dismissal of the historical dimension of Scripture in an effort to protect its divine dimension. The first option is typically referred to as “liberalism” and the second as “fundamentalism.” That is a bit reductionistic as far as I am concerned, but those are the popularly accepted labels. > The Calvinist legacy, at least in principle, is well suited to avoid these extremes for one simple reason. It embraces the “incarnate” nature of Scripture, that it is God’s word but in human form. Scripture is a divine, inspired text, and also on every page bears the unmistakable, discernable, and wonderful stamp of the time and space bound human beings who by inspiration produced it. And this stamp is not to be observed theoretically nor as an unfortunate concession. Rather it is an affirmation that the human element of Scripture is worthy of the most careful and thoughtful reflection, with potentially important, theologically significant payoff. This is a distinctive and vital mark of the Calvinist legacy. From there, can Peter Enns still be considered an orthodox protestant?

Calvin begins his [*Antidote*](https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/calvin_trentantidote.html)1 with the following word (*Preface*): >The name of Sacred Council2 is held in such reverence in the Christian Church, that the very mention of it produces an immediate effect not only on the ignorant but on men of gravity and sound judgment. And doubtless, as the usual remedy which God employed from the beginning in curing the diseases of his Church was for pious and holy pastors to meet, and, after invoking his aid, to determine what the Holy Spirit dictated, Councils are deservedly honored by all the godly. There is this difference, however, — the vulgar, stupified with excessive admiration, do not afterwards make any use of their judgment, whereas those of sounder sense allow themselves, step by step, and modestly, indeed, but still allow themselves to inquire before they absolutely assent. And so it ought to be, in order that our faith, instead of rashly subscribing to the naked decisions of men, may submit to God only. > >... I see one glaring contradiction here: - "Men of sound judgement" consider [General] Councils "Sacred" and, if they are "godly," they "honor" said Councils, since their teaching is what "the Holy Spirit dictated" and in fact are "the normative remedy which God employ[s]" for combating heresy ("curing the diseases of his Church"). - "However," a Council's teaching can be rejected ("[not submitted to]") on the nebulous and subjective ground of its being against "their judgement" and "sounder sense," in which case the teaching is deemed actually "the ... decisions of men" and not God. I like to think of myself as having a basic grasp on logic. So when I read this, the gist is: - Councils have the authority to agree with me, because God is behind them. *Only have the power to agree with me*, because ones who don't are no Councils at all, but the decisions of men; and *because they agree with me*, God is behind them (question-begging). Of course it's clear to see this is logically incoherent and fallacious—but my point is that it is the necessary conclusion of the above. What am I missing here? How aren't Councils hereby portrayed as no-more-important-opinions-than-any-believers' simply stated 'louder,' in bigger numbers (in some caess), and with more insistence (bullying)? (It's 'bullying' if it's not legitimate authority taking punitive measures (such as excommunication/anathema). P.S. Even though this question is primarily to do with Calvinism, answers from a similar or identical stance on the basic role and meaning of Councils are welcome to answer it as well. NOTE: Nothing I have asked or said or ever will ask or say is asked with an intentionally offensive, or disingenuous spirit. Any offense caused is therefore neither intended nor my fault—in addition to being, by definition, a misreading of my question. Thanks in advance. --- 1 i.e. to the Council of Trent 2 i.e. as an institution in general

[*Britannica* article on Calvinism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Calvinism) states > Calvin had certain approximate and attainable tests. He did not > require the experience of the new birth, which is so inward and > intangible, though to be sure later Calvinism moved away from him on > this point and agonized over the signs of election. For Calvin there > were three tests: the profession of faith; a rigorously disciplined > Christian deportment; and a love of the sacraments, which meant the > Lord’s Supper, since infant baptism was not to be repeated. Persons > who could meet these three tests could assume their election and stop > worrying If Christ chose Judas to be a disciple, and if Christ is part of the Trinitarian Godhead being all-knowing and omnipotent... According to Calvinism, how is it that Christ elected Judas Iscariot to discipleship, one of Christ's inner circle, only to be betrayed by him? Calvinists would say Jesus predetermined Judas election to the discipleship because the Bible records he chose him. Because God chose Judas, is not a disciple predetermined to be saved? What happened in this example?

so I find no contradiction between human responsibility and God's election and sovereignty; for context. I just do not agree with a lot of the "hardline" Calvinist positions, I feel they overreach and force a contradiction between predestination and individual responsibility (as in, it's not possible for the total puppet people of hardline Calvinism to be responsible for anything, much like a rock isn't responsible for falling downhill, which flies in the face of what Scripture clearly says, which is that we are responsible.) I wonder how Calvinists answer Isaiah 65:12, which to me seems to pretty clearly state that we are not destined to Hell *until* we choose sin (ESV): >I will destine you to the sword, and all of you shall bow down to the slaughter, because, when I called, you did not answer; when I spoke, you did not listen, but you did what was evil in my eyes and chose what I did not delight in.” I don't intend to come across as combative, I just want to nail down the "mechanism and reality" of sovereignty and personal responsibility, and this verse seems pretty heavily related.

I have been reading *The Catholic Controversy* by St. Francis de Sales ([pdf here](https://ia600302.us.archive.org/22/items/catholiccontrove00sain/catholiccontrove00sain.pdf)) . On [page 109](https://archive.org/details/catholiccontrove00sain/page/108/mode/2up) one finds: >In Exodus, at Geneva and elsewhere among these reformers, they have cut out the twenty-second verse of the second chapter, which is of such weight that neither the Seventy nor the other translators would ever have written it if it had not been in the original. Exodus 2:22, [Douay-Rheims translation](https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=2&ch=2&l=22-#x) , says: > And she bore him a son, whom he called Gersam, saying: I have been a stranger in a foreign country. And she bore another, whom he called Eliezer, saying: For the God of my father, my helper hath delivered me out of the hand of Pharao **What did (John Calvin, William Farel, Theodore Beza, and\or John Knox) have against the verse given in Exod 2:22?** (Could today's Exod. 2:22 have been numbered differently 500 years ago?) I have checked the 1635 printing of the *1610 A.D. Douay Old Testament* ([p. 145](https://archive.org/details/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/page/n161/mode/2up) , [pdf here](https://ia601502.us.archive.org/1/items/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible.pdf)) and it seems to say pretty much the same thing as the above.

I know that the major reformers like Martin Luther, Zwingli, John Calvin, etc. were Roman Catholic priests that became Protestant. According to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, priests can't ordain other priests, only bishops can ordain priests. The question is: Did Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli have the authority to ordain ministers like elders, presbyters, and deacons since they weren't bishops but rather priests?

In his *Institutes of the Christian Religion*, John Calvin discusses the idea that the Biblical canon depends on the ratifying action of the Church (Book 1, Chapter 7). He thinks it does not, preferring to say that the Church formally recognized what everybody already knew. This is meant not only as a historical statement about prevailing opinions, but also speaks to the role of the Holy Spirit in testifying to the authenticity and authority of Scripture. The Latin and French texts use the term *suffragio* or *suffrage* respectively to describe the approval of the Church: > Quare dum illam recipit, ac suffragio suo obsignat, non ex dubia aut alioqui controversa authenticam reddit : sed quia veritatem esse agnoscit Dei sui, pro pietatis officio, nihil cunctando veneratur. (1559 ed.) > > Parqouy l'Eglise en recevant l'Escriture saincte et la signant par son suffrage, ne la rend pas authentique, comme si auparavant elle eust esté douteuse ou en different : mais pource qu'elle la cognoist estre la pure verité de son Dieu, elle la revere et honnore comme elle y est tenue par le devoir de pieté. (1560 ed.) English translators have rendered this language in the same sorts of ways as one another: > When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. (Henry Beveridge) > > Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial. But because the church recognizes Scripture to be the truth of its own God, as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture. (Ford L. Battles) > > For that reason, when the church receives and approves scripture it does not authenticate it, as if it has previously been doubtful or unsure. But since, according to its duty, the church recognizes scripture to be the truth of its Lord, it reveres scripture without delay. (Elsie Anne McKee) The Latin *suffragio* can indeed mean a vote, seal, etc. - some notion of a formally recorded act of testimony. The accompanying *obsignat* matches that. What I am wondering about is the intended connotation of the "seal"-type metaphor and the word *suffragio* / *suffrage*. Elsewhere, seal language is used for sacraments, and the concept of our assent to God in faith seems very similar to what is implied here (we put our trust in God, responding to him, but we don't make him do anything). With reference to Calvin's concept of the church, * Is *suffrage* here intended to denote some communal expression of faith? Or is it just that many individuals independently put their trust in the authority of Scripture? Basically, I'm asking to what extent "the Church" is present here as a single entity. * Is there a meaningful concept of voting? Clearly, English "suffrage" today probably makes us think about aggregating everyone's opinions and picking the most popular. But does Calvin intend to suggest anything like that? I think he is pointing to a vaguer notion of informal universal consensus, especially given that there is only one correct choice, but I'm not fully sure, given that some people are convinced Calvin was some sort of pioneer of democracy. * Is the parallel with Calvin's sacrament language just a coincidence, or are the same concepts being invoked in both instances?

What were John Calvin's counterarguments for iconoclasm aniconism against John of Damascus' arguments in favor of icon veneration?

1 Corinthians 10:13 (ESV) > 13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. **God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability**, **but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it**. If God's grace is irresistible, then the grace God offers to resist temptation should also be irresistible. Yet Christians still fall into sin, which sounds like a logical contradiction. How do Reformed Calvinists make sense of 1 Corinthians 10:13? ____ Related: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91151/50422 - [If God gives us enough grace so that we don't have to sin (1 Corinthians 10:13), then why do we still sin (1 John 1:8-10, 2:1-2)?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/76302/38524)

I’m trying to find an obscure quote from a particular theologian who in his commentary on a particular verse of Scripture wrote something along the lines of the following: > “The exegesis favors the Calvinist, but the implications [of the Calvinist interpretation] would be too difficult to bear.” I vaguely remember it being an Anglican minister, but that is all I have to go on. Does anyone know the quote to which I am referring, who said it, and where I could find it?

From the Wikipedia article on [Determinism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) : > **Determinism is the philosophical view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes**. Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have sprung from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. The opposite of determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called nondeterminism) or randomness. Determinism is often contrasted with free will, although some philosophers claim that the two are compatible. > > **Determinism often is taken to mean *causal determinism*, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states**. This meaning can be distinguished from other varieties of determinism mentioned below. And from the Wikipedia article on [Causality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Volition) about the topic of volition: > **The deterministic world-view holds that the history of the universe can be exhaustively represented as a progression of events following one after as cause and effect**. The [incompatibilist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatibilism) version of this holds that there is no such thing as "[free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will) ". [Compatibilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) , on the other hand, holds that determinism is compatible with, or even necessary for, free will. If we define the *volitional state* of a person as all the contents of their consciousness, their thoughts, emotions, desires, intentions, plans, decisions, tendencies, habits, etc., at a specific point in time, would Reformed Calvinists then say that all *volitional states* of a person are *causally determined* by prior causes in time? More formally, if we define - V(*p*,*t*) as the volitional state of person *p* at time *t*, - U(*t*) as the state of the universe at time *t*, and - *t1* and *t2* as any two different points in time such that *t1* 2*, would Reformed Calvinists agree that V(*p*, *t2*) is causally determined by U(*t1*) for each person *p* in the universe?

The "Servetus Controversy" tells of a man named Michael Servetus who was burned at the stake for heresy -- not by Roman Catholic Inquisitors, but by Protestants in 16th century Geneva, France. *Here* is a brief description of the event in a document at Calvin.edu, and *here* is a link to a Youtube video of a panel of Calvinist pastors discussing the topic at a conference. **Are there any authoritative historic documents that shed further light on what Calvin's involvement may have been?**

Within the Reformed tradition, it is a considered a fundamental principle of doctrine that the 'Chief End' of Man, of Creation and most importantly of God Himself is His own self glorification. We see this in the Westminster Catechism, throughout Calvin's Institutes and by so many within the Puritan tradition, e.g. Johnathan Edwards writing an entire essay on the subject; 'A Dissertation Concerning The End For Which God Created The World '. In fact, one of the 'Solae' of the Reformation, 'Sola Deo Gloria' shows how central God's glory was in the minds of the reformers. 'Q. 1. What is the chief end of man? A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.' - Westminster Catechism, Shorter 'And God had regard to it in this manner, as he had a supreme regard to himself, and value for his own infinite, internal glory.' - Jonathan Edwards, 'A Dissertation Concerning The End For Which God Created The World'. 'The meaning of all this is, that the world, which was made to display the glory of God, is its own creator' - Calvin's 'Institutes', Chapter 5.5. (Calvin is here referencing Virgil, but acknowledges the the world was created for the display of Gods glory). 'Zeal in Christianity is a burning desire to please God, to do His will, and to advance His glory in the world in every possible way' - J.C. Ryle, This doctrine is so singular and remarkable that it can properly be described as the defining principle of Reformed theology. My question is, what are the pre-reformation precedents for this doctrine? I.e. do we see this teaching in the writings of Augustine, of the Schoolmen, in the Eastern church etc..? Although I can clearly see its Biblical precedent, it seems to be a question that was not explicitly addressed until the Reformation.

> The Father, or first person, is ... the only one who is *autotheos*, God in the fullest sense, whereas the Son is his *dunamis* or power and the Spirit a dependent being (SEP > Origen ) > The Scriptures teach that there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten ... (Calvin's Institutes 1.13 .25 @ ccel.org) Are the two views compatible or incompatible?

From what I understand, Calvin not only taught, but effectively systematized the doctrine of "predestinarianism," which holds that: >God for His own glorification, and without any regard to original sin, >has created some as "vessels of mercy", others as "vessels of wrath". >Those created for hell He has also predestined for sin, and whatever faith >and righteousness they may exhibit are at most only apparent, since all >graces and means of salvation are efficacious only in those predestined for >heaven. (From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on predestinarianism .) 1. Is strict Calvinism so extreme that it says God created certain souls as "vessels of wrath" destined for destruction? 2. If so, then what criteria did Calvin say a person could use to determine whether they personally were created for salvation or destruction?