The History and Theology of Calvinism, revised and expanded.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Regi Addictissimus

Completely sold out to the King
Twocopypicture.png

Curt Daniel's History and Theology of Calvinism has just arrived. RHB is the first in the U.S. to have it for sale. We have it available at a significant discount.
It has been revised and expanded. At 906 pages, this appears to be a helpful book on the development and distinctives of Calvinism. I have not read the original but have heard positive commendations about it. I am excited to start reading it.

http://bit.ly/CurtDanCalvinism
 
I first met Curt when he was still in Dallas (edit, long time ago in about 1984-5), and bought books occasionally while he still sent lists out even after he moved to take a pastorate. His book and views have been discussed here going back 11, 12 years and reportedly Curt's a Moderate Calvinist and doesn't think Calvin held to limited atonement. But the work has been noted as a resource of some worth. Here are some past threads.
 
I first met Curt when he was still in Dallas, and bought books occasionally while he still sent lists out even after he moved to take a pastorate. His book and views have been discussed here going back 11, 12 years and reportedly Curt's a Moderate Calvinist and doesn't think Calvin held to limited atonement. But the work has been noted as a resource of some worth. Here are some past threads.

Thank you for the information. I will check them out.
 
I first met Curt when he was still in Dallas (edit, long time ago in about 1984-5), and bought books occasionally while he still sent lists out even after he moved to take a pastorate. His book and views have been discussed here going back 11, 12 years and reportedly Curt's a Moderate Calvinist and doesn't think Calvin held to limited atonement. But the work has been noted as a resource of some worth. Here are some past threads.

From a quick perusal of a few linked threads, your assessment seems accurate. Most conclude that his historical work is valuable while confirming he is weak on the doctrine of the atonement. I read that he takes the Ussher/Davenant direction of the atonement. Thanks again.
 
From what I recall listening to his lectures on this topic, Curt Daniel is a hypothetical universalist. Fair enough. The position was, as I understand it, accommodated by Dort and Westminster.
 
Does this mean that Calvin expressly wrote against limited atonement or that it was not a part of his thinking and the doctrine did not develop fully until the Arminian controversy?
This was covered or commented on in one of the old threads; I believe Curt does not think Calvin was clear enough to say he held to it definitively. But search the old threads as I've not read the book in either edition.
 
Does this mean that Calvin expressly wrote against limited atonement or that it was not a part of his thinking and the doctrine did not develop fully until the Arminian controversy?

He did not expressly write against it. I do not have time right now to comment in length. Here are some threads on the topic:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/did-calvin-believe-in-unlimited-atonement.11871/

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/calvin-and-limited-atonement.35461/

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/limited-atonement.54529/

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/did-calvin-hold-to-limited-atonement.99283/
 
I think this book was originally published in the early 1990s. It looks like Daniel has given it a thorough revision and updating.

Also, it is only one volume, not two volumes, which is what the photo in the OP might imply. The photo is from RHB's extra-savings price for buying two copies.

RHB says it's 906 pages. Evangelical Press (the publisher) says 912. We'll find out who's right!
 
Anyone know where Daniel is originally from and how old he is? I can't find any biographical information, after a quick search.
 
Anyone know where Daniel is originally from and how old he is? I can't find any biographical information, after a quick search.
Dallas. Early to mid 60s I think (he's few years older than me; went to high school with a RE at my church if I recall correctly).
 
Dallas. Early to mid 60s I think (he's few years older than me; went to high school with a RE at my church if I recall correctly).

Thanks, Chris. It'll be interesting to see how Daniel's book compares and contrasts with John T. McNeill's The History and Character of Calvinism, which was published back in the '50s.
 
Reading a book, Concerning The Eternal Predestination Of God, John Calvin, translated by J.K.S. Reid ... I thought 'predestination' would equate to limited atonement. It has been a year or so since I read it, and it is If I recall correctly Calvin's most thorough treatment of the topic (according to the translator) I am a novice in theology BTW, but I'd hate to think that John Calvin was a four pointer :)

So I googled 'does predestination equate to limited atonement ?' and found this long article ;
https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/john-calvins-view-of-limited-atonement/

In it, the author opines on Curt Daniel's book ;

"In an Appendix to his Ph.D. dissertation Curt D. Daniel discusses the question, “Did John Calvin Teach Limited Atonement?”44 This is by far the most extensive treatment of this topic I have ever seen. It provides more quotations of Calvin related to this precise issue than any previous writer; it discusses adequately and fairly the arguments advanced by those who have published materials in this area; it has extensive bibliographies of previous studies; it takes cognizance of three Aberdeen doctoral dissertations that were not available to me by Robert Letham, Robert Doyle, and M. Charles Bell.45

Lest it should appear that this study makes the present essay superfluous, it must be added that Daniel’s conclusion is that Calvin held to universal atonement, while I, even after examining the data and arguments advanced by Daniel, remain convinced that the balance of evidence favors the opposite view. Daniel makes a comment to the effect that most of the contenders in this area tend to ascribe to Calvin the view which they hold themselves, that is to say, they appear to have yielded to the temptation to annex Calvin in support of their own position! Unfortunately this remark,seems to apply also to Daniel’s treatment and to the present article. One may hope, however, that in spite of a natural bias there is enough objectivity in both presentations to make them of some value.46"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top