Why?

[Gus2009]

Why are the doctrines of John Calvin considered "correct" by Calvinist.

[ReformedChapin]

Why are the doctrines of John Calvin considered "correct" by Calvinist.
because they represent the bible?

[Gus2009]

Could you explain how they represent the bible? or how the bible ever needed to be represented by anything other than itself?

[ReformedChapin]

Could you explain how they represent the bible? or how the bible ever needed to be represented by anything other than itself?
You have to be more specific, are you talking about the doctrines of grace? Or what?

[Gus2009]

I suppose thats as good a place to start as any so sure, doctrines of grace it is.

[GrinningDwarf]

Could you explain how they represent the bible? or how the bible ever needed to be represented by anything other than itself?

Just curious...I guess when your pastor gets up to preach, he just reads Scripture? And doesn't bother to explain or expand upon what any of it means?

[Gus2009]

You answered my question with a question, thats fine though.

Just because my pastor decides to take an action wouldnt mean that the action is correct in eyes of God or rationally or what have you. Perhaps he thinks the Bible is self explanatory enough( some sort of literalism-creationist come to mind). Or perhaps he thinks it involves a little more reading between the lines(Catholicism, Baptist, Calvinist, Lutherans, Orthodox, Pentacostals, Arminians, Mormons etc etc etc...)

But to answer youre question specifically, a little bit of both. It would be up to the listener to discerne if he thought the explanation was valid. This could and has led to some disagreeing with various interpretations throughout history. I think thats one of the reasons why there are so many denominations today. I suppose one could make an argument that a bible itself is just a representation of some idea or collection of ideas, we could call this idea the "Word of God" if you like, but thats not really relevant.

So to ask the question in a slightly different way. Why have all these denominations felt the need to explain scripture in some sort of context or to some sort of end? And more to the point, why have they in many areas come to so many vastly different conclusions? Theres a fundamental rule of logic that says that contradictory statements cannot be true about the same thing in the same manner at the same time. Does Calvinism come to its conclusions because of logic, or is there another reason. And if so, what makes you right and them wrong.

[UMP]

Why are the doctrines of John Calvin considered "correct" by Calvinist.

That's like asking why the "universal law of gravitation" espoused by Isaac Newton is considered "correct" by scientists?
Because it IS correct. However, I say forget about Newton or even Calvin, because the truth is simply the truth. Scripture bears out the doctrines of grace, plain and simple. Now as to whether Joe, or Bob, or whomever will believe it, that's up to God to change a mans heart to receive the truth, unlike believing "gravity".

1 Corinthians 2:
[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Gus2009]

That's like asking why the "universal law of gravitation" espoused by Isaac Newton is considered "correct" by scientists?
Because it IS correct. However, I say forget about Newton or even Calvin, because the truth is simply the truth. Scripture bears out the doctrines of grace, plain and simple. Now as to whether Joe, or Bob, or whomever will believe it, that's up to God to change a mans heart to receive the truth, unlike believing "gravity".

1 Corinthians 2:
[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


There actually is a "reason" for the universal law of gravitation other than it being demonstrably true. People knew it was true and upheld because of observation. The real "reason" though wasnt made clear until people grasped a better understanding of the interactions of space-time and matter,Einstein, although i could be mistaken, is to thank.

However, unlike gravity, there isnt a real consensus on what is true about the metaphysical mechanics of fate/destiny/existence/meaning/whatever, even if you believe youre model is the most biblically sound. I can go talk to the other guys and theyll tell me theres is just as biblically sound and give just as many verses to back it up. Whose to say their wrong? You give a bible verse, theyll spin it in a way that makes just as much sense to further their veiw. They might say that the verse you just gave me actually applies to you. Thats the problem with these sorts of ideas, unlike gravity, they arent quantifyable and apparently you cant even get a consensus observation. Ultimately thats where im trying to go with this but ill get to that later. Do you believe that you were the one who would be given the correct conclusion because God pre-ordained you to be? If so, how do you know?

Sorry if any of this seemed incoherent or rambling as i am making it running of 3 hours of sleep.

[heymikey80]

Could you explain how they represent the bible? or how the bible ever needed to be represented by anything other than itself?
The Bible itself asserts that we're to
Preach. That preaching is more than quoting the Bible itself is awfully obvious.
Defend doctrine. That doctrine is more than the Bible itself is rather obvious, given the fact that Scripture itself called the Apostles to consider the matter, for instance, of the Judaizers. Interestingly this decision was reached through interpretation, not directly through a Scriptural statement. Cf. Acts 15, Galatians, remembering that these Scriptures weren't themselves written down when the determination was made.
Separate from wrong doctrine. 1 Corinthians 11 describes over-separation, that is separation for the wrong reasons. But 1 Corinthians 11 also describes the point that the church is intended as a grounds for evaluating doctrine. This evaluation would indeed happen through examining what God means by Scripture. But it's again pretty clear that the statements of doctrine won't be simply reiterating the whole of Scripture.The idea of "Scripture and nothing else" has rarely been defended successfully by people. But please feel free to defend your position by stating the Scripture and nothing else. So far that would exclude all your arguments, they not being from Scripture.

[UMP]

[QUOTE]
There actually is a "reason" for the universal law of gravitation other than it being demonstrably true. People knew it was true and upheld because of observation. The real "reason" though wasnt made clear until people grasped a better understanding of the interactions of space-time and matter,Einstein, although i could be mistaken, is to thank.

However, unlike gravity, there isnt a real consensus on what is true about the metaphysical mechanics of fate/destiny/existence/meaning/whatever, even if you believe youre model is the most biblically sound. I can go talk to the other guys and theyll tell me theres is just as biblically sound and give just as many verses to back it up. Whose to say their wrong? You give a bible verse, theyll spin it in a way that makes just as much sense to further their veiw. They might say that the verse you just gave me actually applies to you. Thats the problem with these sorts of ideas, unlike gravity, they arent quantifyable and apparently you cant even get a consensus observation. Ultimately thats where im trying to go with this but ill get to that later.


That's what I briefly explained in my previous post. I agree.


Do you believe that you were the one who would be given the correct conclusion because God pre-ordained you to be? If so, how do you know?


That's a very good question and very difficult for me to answer. My only suggestion is to pray humbly and earnestly that God show you the truth. In the end, I can convince you of nothing to be true, only God can.

[bradfordl]

Or perhaps he thinks it involves a little more reading between the lines(Catholicism, Baptist, Calvinist, Lutherans, Orthodox, Pentacostals, Arminians, Mormons etc etc etc...)
Personally I would differ with your inclusion of Calvinists in that list. The main distinctive of Calvinism from the rest of those named is that it "reading between the lines" is not a characteristic, rather that scripture is coherently and cohesively understood. See Below.

[Iosias]

Why are the doctrines of John Calvin considered "correct" by Calvinist.

Why not read him and find out ;)

Systematic theology (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.toc.html)

Commentaries (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html)

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Because Yahweh, the Author of Scripture and LIFE,
commanded everyone who LOVES Yahweh, not to.

[bradfordl]

Because Yahweh, the Author of Scripture and LIFE,
commanded everyone who LOVES Yahweh, not to.
Not to what?