renouncing calvinism

[reformedct]

in my short time of studying the scriptures, and being on this board,

i have decided to renounce myself as a calvinist lol

not that i dont agree with the concepts of TULIP

but i think these kind of things can get in the way of just reading our bibles

for example, i agree christ died for the elect, and that those who will end up in hell did not have their sins atoned for

however i think using a term such as Limited Atonement is not as helpful as just showing people SCRIPTURE

the term limited atonement can cause much confusion

i have decided to hold a more augustinian position in my theology but more importantly simply SCRIPTURAL in theology is what we should all be

[keck553]

in my short time of studying the scriptures, and being on this board,

i have decided to renounce myself as a calvinist lol

not that i dont agree with the concepts of TULIP

YAY YAY Praise God! (I mean that God is leading you)

[BrckBrln]

in my short time of studying the scriptures, and being on this board,

i have decided to renounce myself as a calvinist lol

not that i dont agree with the concepts of TULIP

So you still believe in what 'Calvinism' teaches, you just don't want the name?

but i think these kind of things can get in the way of just reading our bibles

I'm sure Calvin and Edwards thought the same.

however i think using a term such as Limited Atonement is not as helpful as just showing people SCRIPTURE

the term limited atonement can cause much confusion

Just use the term Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement, then.

but more importantly simply SCRIPTURAL in theology is what we should all be

And that is Calvinism.

[theBelovedDisciple]

i have decided to hold a more augustinian position in my theology but more importantly simply SCRIPTURAL in theology is what we should all be '
-------------------------------------------------------------------

And Scripture will tell you that Christ was crucified for your sins...
It was not Calvin, or J. Armenian, or any other 'man'...

Jesus the Christ was crucified for you sins... and this theolgy is
Scriptural....
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?


He calls you to 'know' Him and that He was crucified for your sins

[keck553]

Beloved - the point here is that reformedct is inquiring of the LORD and God is revealing truth. What we have to offer as servants of God and believers in this situation is to lift up and praise Almighty God who is working in someone's life at an intimate level. We're not going to get all of the truth in one blast - it's a process.

So I say Halliluyah to see God at work.

[reformedct]

i am not here to say calvinism is not scriptural

but rather instead of saying i am this type of christian or i am that type of christian, we should all just read our bibles and see what it says

i agree with the concepts of tulip however i am not going to bind myself to using certain terms such as Total Depravity. instead i can just say: ephesians says we are dead in our tresspases and Jesus says we must be born again. instead of saying: John Calvin said...

u see what im saying? im not here to say calvinism is the wrong interpretation, im here to say i dont feel like i must be bound to that title

simply put, i agree with much of calvinism, but i will not call myself a calvinist. i am a believer who reads my bible

doctrinal statements are very important for churches so people can know what the church believes, however we dont have to walk around saying, im a calvinist or im an arminian. we can say my views are similar to john calvins or my views are similar to this guy or that but mainly i am a christian

[Bethany67]

Yup, with you all the way on this.

[oneinthespirit]

When one calls him or herself a calvinIST, or a lutherAN, or a westlyEN, you are now following a man, which then has become an organization (denomination).

Jesus came to bring the gospel in one way, and before accending to his throne, he said "Go ye therefore and teach all nations,.....teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." Matt. 28:19,20

The way our master, teacher, or leader (Jesus Christ) taught the gospel, thats the way we should learn it, and teach it. NOT the way Calvin, or M. Luther, or Westly, or even baptist, methodist, pentecostals, church of God, or any organization teaches it.

The first churches that were established were'nt under the teachings of any man, but under the teachings of Jesus through the apostles.

1 Thess. 2:4 "But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts."

1 John 2:7 .."Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning."

And there are many more scriptures indicating that there wasn't different doctrines but one alone.

If any of you are really intrested in commenting more in subjects like this visit the thread intitled Jesus' true church.

[BrckBrln]

I would like to 'set something straight' if I may. Calvinism is not the teaching of man. Yes, it is named after John Calvin but the doctrines under Calvinism are found in the Bible. If you don't feel comfortable with the term 'Calvinism' since it's named after a man, then just use the term 'The Doctrines of Grace'. Same thing, different name. I fully respect anybody's position to not be 'labeled' but I get the sense from some that those of us who don't mind the label are looked at as following doctrines of man rather than the Bible.

[PsPickle]

I have never agreed with Calvinism. I am glad, for whatever reason, that you have decided to leave it.

[reformedct]

I would like to 'set something straight' if I may. Calvinism is not the teaching of man. Yes, it is named after John Calvin but the doctrines under Calvinism are found in the Bible. If you don't feel comfortable with the term 'Calvinism' since it's named after a man, then just use the term 'The Doctrines of Grace'. Same thing, different name. I fully respect anybody's position to not be 'labeled' but I get the sense from some that those of us who don't mind the label are looked at as following doctrines of man rather than the Bible.

i see what you are saying as well.
if someone wants to refer to themselves as a "calvinist" or w/e, im not going to get upset

lets just make sure that we remember we are primarily Christians, under the teachings of Christ.

by renouncing calvinism i mean that i am not going to identify myself as a disciple of Calvin. i agree with the concepts of calvinism, however i do not have to say i am a calvinist, i can just say im a believer who reads my bible whose beliefs are similar to calvinism

its just we have a tendency to say: im this type of christian so i will only associate with my type.

Now there are times when doctrines are extremely heretical and we need not associate with false teachers, but lets not form "camps" and isolate ourselves from one another. lets come together as brothers and sisters in christ and examine the scriptures together

peace

[ProjectPeter]

I would like to 'set something straight' if I may. Calvinism is not the teaching of man. Yes, it is named after John Calvin but the doctrines under Calvinism are found in the Bible. If you don't feel comfortable with the term 'Calvinism' since it's named after a man, then just use the term 'The Doctrines of Grace'. Same thing, different name. I fully respect anybody's position to not be 'labeled' but I get the sense from some that those of us who don't mind the label are looked at as following doctrines of man rather than the Bible.

But then... there are those that would say that Calvinism is the teaching of man interpreting the Bible the way that particular man interpreted the Bible. Same with Wesleyan, Lutheran... etc. You'd be hard pressed to separate the man from the doctrine. Very hard pressed.

[crossnote]

I would like to 'set something straight' if I may. Calvinism is not the teaching of man. Yes, it is named after John Calvin but the doctrines under Calvinism are found in the Bible. If you don't feel comfortable with the term 'Calvinism' since it's named after a man, then just use the term 'The Doctrines of Grace'. Same thing, different name. I fully respect anybody's position to not be 'labeled' but I get the sense from some that those of us who don't mind the label are looked at as following doctrines of man rather than the Bible.

This is rather laughable. Confessional Lutherans make the same claim and I am sure other denoms do the same...that is why they belong to that group.
If the Calvinists (or any group) teaching was in perfect accord with Scripture then we wouldn't be calling them Calvinists..we would call them Christians.
Now the real clincher is that Calvinists don't even agree amongst themselves over everything. Maybe a good way to state the matter is that "I am a Christian first and a ______ (fill in the blank) second.

[Veretax]

in my short time of studying the scriptures, and being on this board,

i have decided to renounce myself as a calvinist lol

not that i dont agree with the concepts of TULIP

but i think these kind of things can get in the way of just reading our bibles

for example, i agree christ died for the elect, and that those who will end up in hell did not have their sins atoned for

however i think using a term such as Limited Atonement is not as helpful as just showing people SCRIPTURE

the term limited atonement can cause much confusion

i have decided to hold a more augustinian position in my theology but more importantly simply SCRIPTURAL in theology is what we should all be

First off let me say Amen. I used to be Calvinist, but am no longer. I agree in many of the things Calvin has written, but I am a biblicist, I believe what the bible says and have grown much stronger int he word since putting aside my reliance on man's summation of doctrine. Frankly I find Calvinism to be a bit on the crusty side as far as doctrine is concerned, when there is just so much more in scripture.

You are doing the right thing here, let no man discourage you. I like what was written about the Bereans who sought daily the scriptures seeing if these things are so. The more we are in God's word the more we will have the proper picture of how he operates.


In my experience I began as you did to see how I could prove what I had been taught was true from the bible, so i dug. Keep digging into the word the Truth is in there. What I found was that some of the things I had been taught were not entirely accurate in the context of scripture at large, and in many places things like this were resulting in bad fruit from the believers I fellowshipped with and cultivated a dull heart for certain things that Jesus clearly called us to do. (Such as personal evangelism) So at some point I decided I could not claim to be a follower of Calvin or Luther, edwards or whoever, I follow Christ and his scriptures and that's what I believe. As I've grown I've discovered that there are in some ways duality in scripture, that for example being called by the Father and accepting in Free Will can both be accomplished and fullfilled simultaneously. Anyhow. I think you have the right perspective here and I encourage you to continue daily in the word.

I would like to 'set something straight' if I may. Calvinism is not the teaching of man. Yes, it is named after John Calvin but the doctrines under Calvinism are found in the Bible. If you don't feel comfortable with the term 'Calvinism' since it's named after a man, then just use the term 'The Doctrines of Grace'. Same thing, different name. I fully respect anybody's position to not be 'labeled' but I get the sense from some that those of us who don't mind the label are looked at as following doctrines of man rather than the Bible.

That's a rather arrogant attitude. people for centuries of different sects from calvinist to armenian, baptist, methodist, presbyterian, etc have all made similar claims. Now there is nothing wrong with labels per say, but it is important that we believe what believe because we believe it not because some man who died hundreds of thousands of years ago believed it. This is the difference to me, when I was a child I accepted many things on faith from our pastor and teachers, but when I grew up in Christ i began to seek these things for myself so that I could stand and proclaim what I knew to be true, not what my church or my church's founder believed to be true.


I think the OP has the right intentions here.

[BrckBrln]

So it's arrogant to believe that what you believe is the truth?