John T. McNeill (1885–1975)

Finishing Calvin's Institutes felt like eating Bran Flakes. You know it's supposed to be good for you, but when given the option to have Lucky Charms, you'll choose the Leprechaun every time.

When I started reading the Institutes I was fresh out of Seminary. I didn't have the opportunity to take a course on Calvin, so I thought that this would round out my education. Another reason I tackled Calvin was my (former) love for systematic theology. I thought that there was nothing more sublime show more than a cohesive logical understanding of scripture.

The more I pastored and studied scripture for myself, the more I became disillusioned with systematic theology. No matter whose system you chose, the emphasizing of some passages over others always felt arbitrary.

Take the Calvinist/Arminianist debate with respect to Philippians 2:12-13. It's all a matter of which side you emphasize: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Calvinism) "for it is God who works in you" (Arminianism) (ESV).

Systematic theology is like a bit-mapped picture. If you have a sufficiently detailed resolution (or nuanced systematic method), you can reproduce a pretty accurate picture of the original. But why not just enjoy the original? Scripture is the story of God's relationship with his people. There is a reason love letters don't look like bullet lists in a PowerPoint presentation. Narrative trumps systems. Every time.

The logic of Calvin's systematic theology is highly nuanced and quite brilliant. I learned a tremendous amount from his encyclopedic knowledge of scripture. (This 1,700 page edition of the Institutes is rather small compared to his Commentary on the entire Bible!) When he speaks about the role of faith in the believer's life and the nature of prayer, his work is inspiring. The problem comes when he follows the logic of his system to the end and is left with with double predestination, for example. (If scripture says that God predestined believers for glory, then logically, He must have predestined souls for hell, right?)

Here is where systems fail and narrative comes to our rescue. The Bible is more of a library than a book. Each author has his own understanding of scripture, as inspired by the Spirit of God. True, the books and stories fit together in amazing ways, but that doesn't take away from their own character. Read Ecclesiastes beside Song of Songs and you'll see what I mean.

I started the Institutes as a systematist. While I still appreciate and respect this discipline, I am now wholeheartedly a Biblical theologian. For example, I would much rather work at bringing out what John meant in his Gospel than spend my time trying to reconcile the date of the crucifixion with Mark's account.

Let scripture speak in all of its sundry glory. show less

5 star because of the impact of this book (actually 4 books/volumes) on Protestant Christianity and what it attempted to accomplish. This book is meant as a survey of the Christian faith for those in the Reformed tradition during the 16th century. It would not pass as an academic work today, but nor was intended to do this. For that reason, one needs to look past the ad hominem arguments and generally proof-texting of Scripture. Calvin dealt with the exegesis in his commentaries, and so more show more detail should be expected there. The reader should also appreciate the context. Calvin is writing to guide Protestant Christians who must have answers for why they reject Roman Catholicism. So, much of Calvin's attention, especially in book 4, is given to critique (to put it mildly) of the papacy and RC system, with regard to soteriology, sacraments, the priesthood, and just about anything else one can think of.

While citing the church fathers from time to time, Calvin leans heavily on Augustine as his primary ancient authority. This comes with strengths and weaknesses. A major weakness, from my perspective, is an embrace of an exhaustive, meticulous view of God's sovereignty. This leads Calvin to assert (and in this regard he does more asserting than arguing) not only that God is the cause, directly or indirectly, of everything that happens in creation history (both good and evil), but also that God has two wills, one revealed and one secret. This latter assertion is especially problematic, since, as others have pointed out, it locates God's goodness in his will (i.e., whatever God wills is "good" because God willed it), rather than his moral character. This means that God ends up ordaining sin and evil (although Calvinists would likely appeal to mystery and a compatibilist view of human free will in articulating this). A dual-willed God is a serious theological dilemma. But that aside, the use of Scripture to support Calvin's view of divine determinism is weak, and again, he tends on these issues to assert rather than argue (relevant texts are Rom 9, John 6, Eph 1, etc.). He seems, for example, to assume individual soteriology when context would more naturally lead to corporate and missional applications.

I was expecting Calvin's arguments for his soteriology, including his definitions of predestination and election to be stronger, but I realized he was more or less outlining these almost for advanced catechism purposes and not to make theological arguments that would stand scrutiny, especially recent arguments. It is notable that Calvin departs significantly from the first three centuries of Christian theology, as did Augustine, regarding his view of human free will and responsibility. And Calvin identifies several times that he is confused at the lack of coherence he interprets in the writings of the early church fathers before Augustine. I think more accurately, Calvin just doesn't like what they stated.

I was initially going to give this a 4 star rating due to the weak argumentation for his view of sovereignty (not simply that I disagree with it, but that he doesn't argue it well). But I changed my mind to give Calvin 5 stars for the reasons I noted at the outset. It also needs to be noted that Calvin does very good work in many other areas of explaining his theology. His section on the Lord's Supper as "real presence" is compelling and well argued. He also inserts pastoral exhortations at various places throughout, almost as expressions of praise (sermon-like style). There's lots to like in this very famous work of Calvin's and I'm glad I took the time to read it. show less

Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a masterfully written systematic summary and defense of the basic tenets of Christianity. It is exegetical in substance, Christ-centered in focus, worshipful in tone, and polemical in style.

Exegetical in substance - Calvin has been called the "father of modern exegesis" and rightly so. He pioneered the literal-historical-grammatical method of exegesis. This is especially true of his excellent commentaries, but also reflected in the Institutes. show more The final court of appeal for Calvin is Scripture. His arguments are laced with quotations from the Bible and one senses that Calvin was very hesitant to go further than Scripture in his surmizings.

Christ-centered in focus - This has really struck me in my reading Calvin (I'm now in volume 2 of this edition). Calvin's Christology was robust and it pervades virtually every page of the Institutes. This is especially true in Book III, which is especially rich.

Worshipful in tone - Despite what some people may think, Calvin is not a dry theologian. Some Calvinists could benefit from soaking in their fore-father - perhaps picking up some of his reverence and humility. Seriously, this book lifts my gaze to God. That's good enough reason to recommend it.

Polemical in style - Along with everything above, Calvin was a polemicist, no doubt about it. This book is saucy! Calvin didn't hesitate to call his adversaries by name AND call them names. That may seem harsh to modern readers and leave a sour taste in some mouths. But even Jesus could call the Pharisees vipers and Calvin doesn't stray too far from his master in this regard. We should also remember the turbulent times in which Calvin wrote. He says in his preface that one of the reasons he wrote the Institutes was to make clear what young French pastors who were being martyred were dying for. Remember that his friends were being killed for their convictions before getting too critical of Calvin's language.

This edition is probably the best available with helpful notes and an excellent team of scholars under J. T. McNeil behind the text. Calvin's quotations are documented and the text is keyed with symbols showing the development of the Institutes from its initial version in 1536 through its five reprints (the final in 1559).

An excellent read for anyone interested in Reformed theology, historical theology, systematic theology or . . . just theology! show less

Much has been said and hated about John Calvin, but I fear too little of Calvin has been read. "Institutes" is about much more than election, but rather presents an entire worldview through with we can understand God, ourselves, and the world God has created. He does this primarily through Scripture but also is well-equipped to argue through natural revelation and human authors.

Despite the many weighty topics Calvin addresses, he writes with a deeply devotional style. He is witty and clever, show more and to his opponents, acerbic. Calvin reserves little patience for those who blaspheme God through human traditionalism or faulty reasoning.

The only difficulty one would encounter when reading Calvin is his references to his contemporary events, but this should not deter any reader. show less