Are the Institutes a systematic theology?

[sotzo]

I'm working through Vol I of Calvin's Institutes. I know Calvin intended these primarily for the education and edification of the Church and secondarily as a defense before the French king of the theology that was leading to persecution of many Protestants. Aside from that, I'm having a difficult time placing the material as a genre relative to other works of theology...is it a systematic theology, natural/revelational theology, none of the above?

Reason I ask is that I have certain questions about things he has written and perhaps more information on what he was intending as a genre will help clear them up.

 

[RamistThomist]

What do you mean by "natural/revelation" theology? I wouldn't think the Institutes would be a "natural theology."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I recently read that Calvin intended to follow (in a general way) Paul the apostle's essential expression of the gospel as propounded in Romans.

By the way, I would basically classify the Institutes as a proto-Systematic. You will find, when reading Reformation and post-Reformation authors, that they do not fall into literary categories created in following ages.

 

[panicbird]

I would call the Institutes systematic-theology-ish. Is it a systematic like Hodge or Berkhof? No. But it is an explication of Protestant theological distinctives. I am no Calvin scholar, of course, so I will defer to those who know much more than I.

Bruce, I have heard that as well, and I have heard that he was following the Apostles' Creed.

 

[wsw201]

Agree with the above.

If I remember correctly, McGrath in his book on Calvin noted that the standard used in this type of writing was to follow the outline of the Apostles Creed.

 

[sotzo]

What do you mean by "natural/revelation" theology? I wouldn't think the Institutes would be a "natural theology."

Fair question. What I mean is that he is giving a theology of general and specific revelation. My confusion in the initial chapters of Volume I is that he seems to be indicating he will start with the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves (really basic epistemology) but then he moves within that discussion to specific attributes of God and everyone being guilty before Him. In other words, he seems to be indicating he will work from a foundational level and building upon it, but he moves within the discussion of generalities to Biblical Christianity very quickly. Obviously no fault there, but I'm just trying to follow his logic...if he is trying to work from general to specifics.