Calvinists only please-Sola Scriptura

[myhopeisfound]

Protestants,
Can you explain why all Calvinistic beliefs have to be backup by scripture?...and can you back up your response with scripture? Is Sola Scriptura in the scriptures...back it up with scripture please

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Protestants,
Can you explain why all Calvinistic beliefs have to be backup by scripture?...and can you back up your response with scripture? Is Sola Scriptura in the scriptures...back it up with scripture please

I have studied Calvin quite comprehensively and he assertively states that all truth is contained in Scripture and that Scripture is the final authority on matters of Christian faith.

 

[St_Worm2]

Protestants,
Can you explain why all Calvinistic beliefs have to be backup by scripture?...and can you back up your response with scripture? Is Sola Scriptura in the scriptures...back it up with scripture please

We use Scripture to demonstrate that our doctrines are Biblical. IOW, we want to make sure that what we say we believe agrees with what God says is true.

It's perhaps most important to note that our beliefs are not simply "backed-up" by Scripture, but that it's in the Scriptures that we find the basis for them to begin with.

You then ask: Is it possible to backup what I just said with Scripture?

Yes, I think so, but why bother? The reason for doing so seems both logical and necessary, does it not??

Finally you ask: Can the doctrine of sola Scriptura be found in the Bible?

Yes, of course. Let me start you off with this passage from 2 Timothy to consider:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training
in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work"
2 Timothy 3:16-17​

 

[cindy161]

Good for John Calvin but remember he is only a man. As such infallible.

Just beware that Christ saves, not Calvin.

John Calvin - Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1 "...it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God's secret plan." "..God's secret plan is the cause of hardening". Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1

John Calvin - Book 2, Ch 1, Section 8… hence even infants bring their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not from another’s, but their own defect….and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God.

John Calvin - Book 3, Ch 23, Section 4"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will."

John Calvin - Book 3, Ch 23, Section 7"Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?

Even children dying unbaptized are lost. Martin Luther R. Seeburg, History of Doctrine,. Vol. II, p.245

 

[cindy161]

Not all Calvanitic beliefs can be backed up. E,g

Good for John Calvin but remember he is only a man. As such infallible.

Just beware that Christ saves, not Calvin.

John Calvin - Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1 "...it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God's secret plan." "..God's secret plan is the cause of hardening". Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1

John Calvin - Book 2, Ch 1, Section 8… hence even infants bring their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not from another’s, but their own defect….and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God.

John Calvin - Book 3, Ch 23, Section 4"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will."

John Calvin - Book 3, Ch 23, Section 7"Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?

Even children dying unbaptized are lost. Martin Luther R. Seeburg, History of Doctrine,. Vol. II, p.245

 

[cindy161]

Note also T.U.L.I.P.

Most (not all) Calvinists hold to the 5 points. However John Calvin is a best a 4 and 1/2 point Calvinist as his writings show he did noy support limited atonement in what BECAME the Calvinist doctrine. As such Note all of their doctrine can be backed by scripture.

 

[Monseigneur_Gentilhomme]

First, I suggest you study the late Medieval background in which Calvin would have been familiar with. The notion of limited atonement did not start with Dort but can be traced from time to time in the Medieval period.
Second, not all doctrines of limited atonement are the same. Hypothetical Universalism was held by several delegates who helped draft up Dort.
Third, it can be strongly argued that Calvin did hold to Limited Atonement (see the late Roger Nicole's article found here: John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement) Can be found also in his collected writings.
Fourth, Reformed theology is not monolithic because it is not a cult. Neither is Roman Catholicism. Both groups have room for diversity within their confessional boundaries (See Ratzinger v. Küng v. John XXIII v. Pius XII). So, Calvin, Beza, Rutherford, Owen, Edwards, Usher all are considered Reformed Theologians and held to different views on a variety of things.
Fifth, the calvin v. calvinist debate has really move on in academic circles with the exception of fundamentalist baptist apologetics (and lay person roman catholic apologetics) thanks to the scholarship of Richard A. Muller. It has been out there for 20 + years and not a single person has wrote a rebuttal to the argument put forward in: Amazon.com: The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) (9780195151688): Richard A. Muller: Books

Hope this helps! God Bless

 

[St. Paul]

I have studied Calvin quite comprehensively and he assertively states that all truth is contained in Scripture and that Scripture is the final authority on matters of Christian faith.

This makes sense to me since scripture is God breathed. The final authority comes down to God and not some goofball wearing a funny hat.