Ordering in the Institutes

[toddpedlar]

Hi all -

Been a LONG time since I've posted, but life has finally settled down here enough to get back on "board".

I'm wondering about something I've heard claimed a number of times (usually by more "moderate" theologians), namely, that Beza is responsible somehow for the ordering in the 1559 edition of the Institutes of Calvin... (and for the relative prominence of predestination, etc.)

Now I've got no reason whatsoever to quibble with Calvin's ordering... I think the work is an absolute masterpiece... but I do have a problem with this claim. As I found out in reading his note to the reader in my copy of the Institutes, Calvin himself wasn't happy with the order of the various editions until the 1559 vintage:

"Although I did not regret the labor spent, I was never satisfied until the work had been arranged in the order now set forth."

Now whence cometh the claim so often heard about Beza's dickering with the text order? It doesn't seem at all justifiable. (has anyone else ever heard this claim made, or is it just me?)

Cheers,

Todd

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by toddpedlar
Hi all -

Been a LONG time since I've posted, but life has finally settled down here enough to get back on "board".

I'm wondering about something I've heard claimed a number of times (usually by more "moderate" theologians), namely, that Beza is responsible somehow for the ordering in the 1559 edition of the Institutes of Calvin... (and for the relative prominence of predestination, etc.)

Now I've got no reason whatsoever to quibble with Calvin's ordering... I think the work is an absolute masterpiece... but I do have a problem with this claim. As I found out in reading his note to the reader in my copy of the Institutes, Calvin himself wasn't happy with the order of the various editions until the 1559 vintage:

"Although I did not regret the labor spent, I was never satisfied until the work had been arranged in the order now set forth."

Now whence cometh the claim so often heard about Beza's dickering with the text order? It doesn't seem at all justifiable. (has anyone else ever heard this claim made, or is it just me?)

Cheers,

Todd

Dear Todd,

Good to hear from you.

Beza did nothing to the Institutes. The Barthians (and Evangelical "Calvin v the Calvinist" lot) have made a great deal of the claim that Calvin moved his doctrine of predestination from Book 1 to Book 4.

Nonsense and poppycock. He did no such thing. In the '59 edn he moved his discussion of providence from book 3 to book 1.

Traditionally providence and election were handled together in book 1 of most of the major medieval systems/handbooks of theology.

Calvin originally had them together in book 3 but for the '59 he separated them moving providence back to its traditional location in book 1 and leaving predestination in its somewhat unusal (but quite happy) place in book 3 as the a posteriori explanation for how sinners come to faith.

That some of the Reformed orthodox moved predestination back to book 1, to its traditional place, has been seen by the above mentioned critics as evidence of a massive shift in Reformed orthodoxy away from Calvin's theology.

Richard Muller has corrected this canard at considerable length in The Unaccomodated Calvin (NY: OUP, 2000) and in the sequel After Calvin (NY: OUP, 2003?) and in numerous journal articles.

Cheers,

rsc

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Originally posted by toddpedlar
I'm wondering about something I've heard claimed a number of times (usually by more "moderate" theologians), namely, that Beza is responsible somehow for the ordering in the 1559 edition of the Institutes of Calvin... (and for the relative prominence of predestination, etc.)

Dear Todd,

Good to hear from you.

Likewise, Scott - been a long while...

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Beza did nothing to the Institutes. The Barthians (and Evangelical "Calvin v the Calvinist" lot) have made a great deal of the claim that Calvin moved his doctrine of predestination from Book 1 to Book 4.

Nonsense and poppycock. He did no such thing. In the '59 edn he moved his discussion of providence from book 3 to book 1.

Traditionally providence and election were handled together in book 1 of most of the major medieval systems/handbooks of theology.

Calvin originally had them together in book 3 but for the '59 he separated them moving providence back to its traditional location in book 1 and leaving predestination in its somewhat unusal (but quite happy) place in book 3 as the a posteriori explanation for how sinners come to faith.

That some of the Reformed orthodox moved predestination back to book 1, to its traditional place, has been seen by the above mentioned critics as evidence of a massive shift in Reformed orthodoxy away from Calvin's theology.

Richard Muller has corrected this canard at considerable length in The Unaccomodated Calvin (NY: OUP, 2000) and in the sequel After Calvin (NY: OUP, 2003?) and in numerous journal articles.

Thanks for your expert input. I seem to recall now a little book by Battles wherein he describes the early editions and the moving of sections from one place to another. Can't recall the title, and I don't have it... 'twas one of those books that I had borrowed from the Cornell University library (one of the best secular university collections of Reformed texts, oddly enough!) at one time.

Anyway, thanks again.

Todd