PDA

View Full Version : renouncing calvinism



reformedct
Dec 22nd 2008, 11:10 PM
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
Dec 22nd 2008, 11:14 PM
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 :pp:pp:pp:pp Praise God! (I mean that God is leading you)

BrckBrln
Dec 22nd 2008, 11:28 PM
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. :rolleyes: :)


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. :dunno:

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

And that is Calvinism.

theBelovedDisciple
Dec 22nd 2008, 11:34 PM
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
Dec 22nd 2008, 11:40 PM
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
Dec 23rd 2008, 12:19 AM
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
Dec 23rd 2008, 12:27 AM
Yup, with you all the way on this.

oneinthespirit
Dec 23rd 2008, 12:56 AM
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
Dec 23rd 2008, 01:32 AM
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
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:18 AM
I have never agreed with Calvinism. I am glad, for whatever reason, that you have decided to leave it.

reformedct
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:27 AM
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
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:30 AM
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
Dec 23rd 2008, 07:19 AM
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
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:26 PM
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
Dec 23rd 2008, 04:21 PM
So it's arrogant to believe that what you believe is the truth?

ProjectPeter
Dec 23rd 2008, 04:26 PM
Sure... if one is arrogant about it. :lol: Folks need understand though that there is a difference between arrogance and confidence. That can be a fine line sure... but a line nevertheless.

Veretax
Dec 23rd 2008, 04:28 PM
So it's arrogant to believe that what you believe is the truth?

It's arrogant to say that one teacher who was not an apostle's teaching is somehow superior to all others and is the only one based on the bible. All such man made collection of beliefs essentially derive from the bible, the question is whether they are correct derivations. there was a time I believed in Infant Baptism, even believed the bible supported it. That is no longer the case for me, I no longer see those passages in the same isegetical and incorrect thinking and when I removed my preconceptions and read the text for simply what it says, I found that only by imposing my assumptions could I draw out that any infants or toddlers were thus baptized. that is just one example. Believe what you want, but I stand on the Bible alone not the words of any particular theologian.

BrckBrln
Dec 23rd 2008, 04:37 PM
It's arrogant to say that one teacher who was not an apostle's teaching is somehow superior to all others and is the only one based on the bible.

Where did I say such a thing? I have never even read Calvin. For that matter, I've never read Luther, Edwards, or the Puritans either. And there is nothing wrong with saying Calvin is 'superior' (in the sense that he's more biblical and godly) than somebody like Pelagius.


Believe what you want, but I stand on the Bible alone not the words of any particular theologian.

What was that first sola of the Reformation again? Oh, that's right, sola scriptura (scripture alone). Not Calvin alone. :rolleyes:

Veretax
Dec 23rd 2008, 04:43 PM
Where did I say such a thing? I have never even read Calvin. For that matter, I've never read Luther, Edwards, or the Puritans either. And there is nothing wrong with saying Calvin is 'superior' (in the sense that he's more biblical and godly) than somebody like Pelagius.



What was that first sola of the Reformation again? Oh, that's right, sola scriptura (scripture alone). Not Calvin alone. :rolleyes:


You know, tone of voice is always so hard to discern on a messageboard. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ here so if I perceived a Haughtiness that isn't there I thoroughly apologize. Please forgive my jump to conclusion.

keck553
Dec 23rd 2008, 04:57 PM
If Calvin is right, why bother proclaiming the Gospel?

reformedct
Dec 23rd 2008, 05:15 PM
If Calvin is right, why bother proclaiming the Gospel?


i think you are reffering to hyper calvinism which says:

God will save His elect so who cares if i witness

it is true that God will save who he plans to, however proper calvinism says:

since we dont know whose elect lets hurry up and preach the gospel to everyone! who knows whose gonna respond to the call!

RabbiKnife
Dec 23rd 2008, 05:19 PM
I am an avowed Calvin and Hobbsist, and will fight any man, woman, boy or girl tooth, nail, and headbutts who denies the excellence and superiority of the same.

:lol:

ProjectPeter
Dec 23rd 2008, 05:21 PM
Let me go on record once again in yet another thread... ;) I have had plenty of experience witnessing in the streets. I have had plenty of experience as well with trying to get baptist, pentecostal, charismatic, etc. folk out there working it too. You'd just as well asked them to give up their first born. When it got down to folks showing up... it was mostly Reformed folk. That isn't just in one place either... that is across the board.

Keep in mind that not a lot of Reformed do a lot of witnessing either... but there isn't a group of folk out there who have the market cornered in witnessing very little. Most fit that bill regardless of denomination or church affiliation. I also speak that to the churches shame. In that regard the Mormons and JW's make us look like we really don't have much good news at all.

Veretax
Dec 23rd 2008, 05:33 PM
Let me go on record once again in yet another thread... ;) I have had plenty of experience witnessing in the streets. I have had plenty of experience as well with trying to get baptist, pentecostal, charismatic, etc. folk out there working it too. You'd just as well asked them to give up their first born. When it got down to folks showing up... it was mostly Reformed folk. That isn't just in one place either... that is across the board.

Keep in mind that not a lot of Reformed do a lot of witnessing either... but there isn't a group of folk out there who have the market cornered in witnessing very little. Most fit that bill regardless of denomination or church affiliation. I also speak that to the churches shame. In that regard the Mormons and JW's make us look like we really don't have much good news at all.


it probably varies by region as the people are varied. Our Baptist Church group in college, we really were out there at witnessing a lot. I'm actually wanting to make this a point of emphasis with my pastor that we should have a weekly time to do this, but his health is poor right now and I'm rather concerned :/

Butch5
Dec 23rd 2008, 06:46 PM
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.

Sorry my friend, Calvinism is the doctrines of men.

BrckBrln
Dec 23rd 2008, 06:51 PM
Sorry my friend, Calvinism is the doctrines of men.

Aren't you Catholic? Or close to it? Don't you think the ECF's were practically infallible?

Friend of I AM
Dec 23rd 2008, 06:55 PM
So it's arrogant to believe that what you believe is the truth?

No..I don't think so. One has to be open to the possibility of error from time to time though...being that we are fallible human beings. I grew part Methodist..then went to a Baptist Church for a bit, then a Pentacostal..and basically found that foundationally many of these churches are very much the same. One needs to study oneself in any particular church and have faith in God when one hears a message..as no man alive that I know of is infallible when it comes to discerning the scriptures.

Butch5
Dec 23rd 2008, 07:11 PM
Aren't you Catholic? Or close to it? Don't you think the ECF's were practically infallible?

What does what I believe have to do with Calvinism being doctrines of men?

I was a Calvinist, I know what Calvin taught, I have Calvin's 22 vol commentary, I have his institutes, I have read them sparingly, But can look up whatever he said. I have the Westminster Confession of faith, I can point out contradictions in it. Most Calvinists won't even admit to what Calvin taught. He taught double predestination, as did Luther, that God predestined some to heaven and the rest to hell. Where in the Bible are
we taught that God predestined people to hell? I also know that Calvin and Luther had many of their opponents killed if they disagreed with their theology.

And no, I am not Catholic, I am Christian. Yes, I hold that the Ante-Nicene Church fathers are extremely informative. I've never claimed they were infallible, however to study them in very valuable.

The Parson
Dec 23rd 2008, 07:51 PM
As opposed to Calvinism, how about Jesusism? Not trying to be cute, just wanting to make a point.

Emanate
Dec 23rd 2008, 10:09 PM
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


Whenever someone starts quoting "church fathers", I usually stop listening

RogerW
Dec 23rd 2008, 11:24 PM
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

Greetings Reformed,

I've discovered that it does not matter whether I call myself a Calvinist or not. The FACT remains that when I speak of the doctrines of Scripture and show through the Bible how they are indeed doctrines of God's Sovereign Grace, then I will be called a Calvinist by those who embrace the doctrine of free will.

To label someone a Calvinist is an attempt to not only justify the unbiblical doctrine of free will, but also to make others believe that they need not search the Scripture to see if what I say is true. By calling me a Calvinist they can simply claim that I follow the doctrines of a man, therefore it is foolish to listen to anything I say. It matters not one whit to some people, that what I might say may align perfectly with the teachings of Christ, still they are comfortable in their doctrine of free will, and would rather not be confronted with what sayeth the Word of God.

I understand why you would not want to be called a Calvinist. In fact neither do I...but that will not change the fact that if you continue to defend and biblically support God's Sovereignty over man's free will, you will be confronted with the title. There are far worse things then being called a Calvinist, like for instance Arminian, Pelagian, or semi-Pelagian.

The question is, do we espouse God-centered Biblical doctrine of God's Sovereign Grace over man...or do we espouse un-biblical man-centered doctrine, where man is sovereign over God?

Many Blessings,
RW

Butch5
Dec 24th 2008, 12:23 AM
Greetings Reformed,

I've discovered that it does not matter whether I call myself a Calvinist or not. The FACT remains that when I speak of the doctrines of Scripture and show through the Bible how they are indeed doctrines of God's Sovereign Grace, then I will be called a Calvinist by those who embrace the doctrine of free will.

To label someone a Calvinist is an attempt to not only justify the unbiblical doctrine of free will, but also to make others believe that they need not search the Scripture to see if what I say is true. By calling me a Calvinist they can simply claim that I follow the doctrines of a man, therefore it is foolish to listen to anything I say. It matters not one whit to some people, that what I might say may align perfectly with the teachings of Christ, still they are comfortable in their doctrine of free will, and would rather not be confronted with what sayeth the Word of God.

I understand why you would not want to be called a Calvinist. In fact neither do I...but that will not change the fact that if you continue to defend and biblically support God's Sovereignty over man's free will, you will be confronted with the title. There are far worse things then being called a Calvinist, like for instance Arminian, Pelagian, or semi-Pelagian.

The question is, do we espouse God-centered Biblical doctrine of God's Sovereign Grace over man...or do we espouse un-biblical man-centered doctrine, where man is sovereign over God?

Many Blessings,
RW

Therein lies the problem Roger. The Arminian does not claim man is sovereign over God. The Arminian agrees that God is sovereign, and that He gave man the freedom to choose. It is the Calvinist who distracts from the real issue, and says that the Arminian claims to be sovereign over God. It is my personal opinion that Calvinists do this, due to the fact that they cannot refute the free will argument, not to mention the multitude of Scripture that they cannot reconcile. As an example I have asked many questions of Calvinists, to which I have received no response.

Yukerboy
Dec 24th 2008, 12:31 AM
You will find free will in the Bible right next to rapture, sinful Christians, and the Easter Bunny.

I especially love it when those who choose to read free will into the Bible will say that sinful nature cannot be found in the Bible unless it is read into it.

Let us not be hypocritical.

Yuke

VerticalReality
Dec 24th 2008, 03:34 AM
Everyone take a few steps back and preview what it is you're stating before you hit that submit reply button. Is what you're stating indicative of the grace and love of our Lord that is within?

Let's give our views in love and leave out all the "your view is false doctrine" type responses . . .

Amos_with_goats
Dec 24th 2008, 04:10 AM
Blessings to the OP,

Any move away from the "ism's" of men and in the direction of Christ is a move in the right direction. :hug:

reformedct
Dec 24th 2008, 04:31 AM
Therein lies the problem Roger. The Arminian does not claim man is sovereign over God. The Arminian agrees that God is sovereign, and that He gave man the freedom to choose. It is the Calvinist who distracts from the real issue, and says that the Arminian claims to be sovereign over God. It is my personal opinion that Calvinists do this, due to the fact that they cannot refute the free will argument, not to mention the multitude of Scripture that they cannot reconcile. As an example I have asked many questions of Calvinists, to which I have received no response.


as i also said, i believe arminiasm is slightly off as well. i believe man has freedom of choice, but apart from the work of God, he will not choose to do what he ought. i think this is very scriptural. will a man, of his own will, choose to obey God? to love God? to seek God? to trust God? we must remember all of scripture. the bible says no one seeks God. no one understands. so our interpretation must encompass these types of versus as well as the ones that talk about choice

for example the OT says pharoah hardened his own heart, then it turns around and says God hardened his heart? which one is it? BOTH! lol God hardened pharoahs heart by being patient and giving him infinitre reasons and time and warnings to repent, but pharaoah was responsible for hardening his heart. God used circumstances to expose Pharaoahs wickedness, he did not force Pharoae to be wicked.

what i hope everybody takes out from this thread is the hunger to study the word of God more closley than what others tell us

the way i see it in Scripture:

God is sovreign in that everything is under his control (this is key)

God is sovreign in that he can override the "free will" of a man

(as seen when he told King Nebuchadnezzar he would eat grass like a beast, and in that very hour the King did exactly as God had said. I dont think the King willfully went out and ate grass and lived like a beast. It seems clear that God has the power to override a mans control of his own body, mind, and will)

God is not responsible for the evil choices that man makes. man is fully accountable, even if he doesnt know the law. He will judge everyone according to their works

God is responsible for salvation. salvation belongs to the Lord Jonah 2:9

so salvation is not something we work for, grab, or strive for, but rather it is given by the owner, God

if man repents, there is scripture that says "perhaps God would GRANT THEM repentance" so it is God who grants repentance

However if someone does not repent they are still fully accountable for their evil ways

it sounds like a contradiction but so does romans 3 and james with faith/works

we must accept all scripture and just pray that God shows us what is right

as far as my understanding goes:
it seems that all men have fallen and rebelled against God, and God has chosen to share his salvation with some. He calls and pleads and desires that evryone repents. this does not mean that all people will. God does not desire that women be raped, but it happens. as Jesus said "it is not you who chose me, but i chose you"

however even though God desires that all repent, is it not God Himself who reveals Himself to others? Did he not have the power to reveal Himself to all the pagan nations in the OT? but he chose not to. It sounds difficult but we must accept what scripture says

watchinginawe
Dec 24th 2008, 04:46 AM
I especially love it when those who choose to read free will into the Bible...Huh? We choose to be wrong about the existence of free will? :o :lol:

God Bless!

reformedct
Dec 24th 2008, 04:50 AM
Huh? We choose to be wrong about the existence of free will? :o :lol:

God Bless!

i think there is a slight misunderstanding of "free will"

i may be wrong but i believe "free will" was a term coined by a humanist scholar.

free will means you can choose whatever you want. good or bad.

it seems scripture teaches bound will. man is free to choose whatever he wants, however apart from God he will use his "freedom" to choose evil and sin and folly. man apart from life in God "freely chooses" death and sin and folly and rebellion

anything done apart from faith is sin

feeding the poor apart from faith is sin
being a nice guy apart from faith is sin
even when unsaved men do good it is sin, because it is not done in faith and thanksgiving and glory to God. even if an unsaved man does good so that God will be pleased, apart from faith, it is sin, because we are justified by faith in the work of Gods son. We cannot earn our way

scripture talks about us having a cold heart that needs to be removed and a new heart that needs to be gained

Sirus
Dec 24th 2008, 04:53 AM
You will find free will in the Bible right next to rapture
'caught up' is

...never seen a bunny in there....

threebigrocks
Dec 24th 2008, 04:53 AM
Where did I say such a thing? I have never even read Calvin. For that matter, I've never read Luther, Edwards, or the Puritans either. And there is nothing wrong with saying Calvin is 'superior' (in the sense that he's more biblical and godly) than somebody like Pelagius.

What was that first sola of the Reformation again? Oh, that's right, sola scriptura (scripture alone). Not Calvin alone. :rolleyes:

We cannot say that one person is more biblical and godly so we will follow him. That's selecting and elevating one man and his teachings over another.

Look to Christ, put down catch phrases and all sayings that we've coined over the last 2000 years put forth by men and, as someone else said which I added the other day to my signature - just read scripture for what it says. Let everything you know fall out of your head and just read it. I did, and I thank God for placing that on my heart early in my walk.

As for sola scripture - close, but "no cigar". We can't make heads or tails of scripture if we don't allow the Holy Spirit to speak to us through it. Otherwise, it's just words. We live a spiritual life, worshiping, praying, communing with God through the Spirit. If we are just reading the words on a page without seeing it with spiritual eyes - may as well close up the book. Thank God for raising up His Son but never leaving us alone to figure this out with our own self!

Sirus
Dec 24th 2008, 04:55 AM
i think there is a slight misunderstanding of "free will"

i may be wrong but i believe "free will" was a term coined by a humanist scholar.Solomon? :bounce:

threebigrocks
Dec 24th 2008, 04:57 AM
i think there is a slight misunderstanding of "free will"

i may be wrong but i believe "free will" was a term coined by a humanist scholar.

free will means you can choose whatever you want. good or bad.

it seems scripture teaches bound will. man is free to choose whatever he wants, however apart from God he will use his "freedom" to choose evil and sin and folly. man apart from life in God "freely chooses" death and sin and folly and rebellion

scripture talks about us having a cold heart that needs to be removed and a new heart that needs to be gained

"Ignorace is no excuse for not knowing the law". Romans 1, evidence surrounds us.

Romans 1
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

reformedct
Dec 24th 2008, 05:01 AM
We cannot say that one person is more biblical and godly so we will follow him. That's selecting and elevating one man and his teachings over another.

Look to Christ, put down catch phrases and all sayings that we've coined over the last 2000 years put forth by men and, as someone else said which I added the other day to my signature - just read scripture for what it says. Let everything you know fall out of your head and just read it. I did, and I thank God for placing that on my heart early in my walk.

As for sola scripture - close, but "no cigar". We can't make heads or tails of scripture if we don't allow the Holy Spirit to speak to us through it. Otherwise, it's just words. We live a spiritual life, worshiping, praying, communing with God through the Spirit. If we are just reading the words on a page without seeing it with spiritual eyes - may as well close up the book. Thank God for raising up His Son but never leaving us alone to figure this out with our own self!


i think sola scriptura simply means the bible is the highest authority for mankind. sola scriptura is different than SOLO scriptura, which means only was is written is legitamate, and nothing outside of what is written is valid. under SOLO scriptura there can be no personal experience

under SOLA scriptura, ther can be personal experience with the Spirit, but it must be consistent with what the Bible teaches. for example if someone said, the Spirit just revealed to me that we should assasinate the president.

sola scriptura means: ok, this guy said he heard from the Spirit to kill a guy. what does scripture say? sorry dude your revelation doesnt line up with scripture, therefore we reject it. thats what sola scriptura means i believe. it simply means that the Bible is the highest authority not the only authority

watchinginawe
Dec 24th 2008, 05:01 AM
i think there is a slight misunderstanding of "free will"

i may be wrong but i believe "free will" was a term coined by a humanist scholar.

free will means you can choose whatever you want. good or bad.

it seems scripture teaches bound will. man is free to choose whatever he wants, however apart from God he will use his "freedom" to choose evil and sin and folly. man apart from life in God "freely chooses" death and sin and folly and rebellionI really wasn't picking up the term "free will", but rather commenting on how humerous it is that we "choose to see free will".

I believe the Bible teaches free moral agency. In other words, we can do the will of God or not where God allows such freedom of will. As a corollary, there are certain aspects of God's will that is carried out by man. So, if man does not do the will of God (where God allows such freedom of will) then there is also undone purposes of God. I'm not saying that we can understand it all, but when we see children starving then I say it is not necessarily God's will but possibly God's undone will.

God Bless!

BrckBrln
Dec 24th 2008, 05:07 AM
We cannot say that one person is more biblical and godly so we will follow him. That's selecting and elevating one man and his teachings over another.

So we can't say that somebody like Calvin was more biblical and godly than somebody who is a heretic? I don't really understand what you are saying here.


As for sola scripture - close, but "no cigar". We can't make heads or tails of scripture if we don't allow the Holy Spirit to speak to us through it. Otherwise, it's just words. We live a spiritual life, worshiping, praying, communing with God through the Spirit. If we are just reading the words on a page without seeing it with spiritual eyes - may as well close up the book. Thank God for raising up His Son but never leaving us alone to figure this out with our own self!And I just got done hearing Albert Mohler talk about this very thing and he said Calvin preached what you just said better than anybody.

threebigrocks
Dec 24th 2008, 05:21 AM
So we can't say that somebody like Calvin was more biblical and godly than somebody who is a heretic? I don't really understand what you are saying here.

And I just got done hearing Albert Mohler talk about this very thing and he said Calvin preached what you just said better than anybody.

It's not the person Brck. It's the notion of saying one man has a better doctrine than another. Heretic or not, look what that thinking got us - 38,000+ denominations. Cults. Crazy stuff. What of Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9? What of Christ's prayer in John 17? Calvin vs. Luther - doesn't matter. Don't choose them, follow Christ.

You know what? Some who are considered Calvinists are powerful preachers. I'm not one who believes as the reformed do, but have listened to a couple on a rare occation. But, just because a man can preach and get the attention of the congregation (2 or 2000) and hold it for an hour doesn't a correct doctrine make, even if it is something many can agree on.

BrckBrln
Dec 24th 2008, 05:26 AM
It's not the person Brck. It's the notion of saying one man has a better doctrine than another. Heretic or not, look what that thinking got us - 38,000+ denominations. Cults. Crazy stuff. What of Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9? What of Christ's prayer in John 17? Calvin vs. Luther - doesn't matter. Don't choose them, follow Christ.

Yeah, I really don't understand this at all. So Calvin's teaching (even though you don't agree with him on everything) is not better than some heretics teaching?

threebigrocks
Dec 24th 2008, 05:28 AM
Let me just say this. Christ is best. Put aside what anyone else has said. It's what He says that matters.

BrckBrln
Dec 24th 2008, 05:31 AM
Let me just say this. Christ is best. Put aside what anyone else has said. It's what He says that matters.

I agree, but does this mean we shouldn't listen to preachers, then? If Calvin says Christ is the Son of God and another person doesn't, and I 'choose' Calvin's belief over this other person's, does that mean I am following Calvin? No, because what he says is what Scripture says.

BCF
Dec 24th 2008, 05:41 AM
I agree, but does this mean we shouldn't listen to preachers, then? If Calvin says Christ is the Son of God and another person doesn't, and I 'choose' Calvin's belief over this other person's, does that mean I am following Calvin? No, because what he says is what Scripture says.

My friend, don't worry so much about what someone tells you. Worry about what the Spirit of God which dwells inside of you tells you. If you are listening to your Spirit...it won't matter if it is something that is of Calvin's belief or what a 6 year old child may tell you. Your Spirit will guide you in the right direction no matter what. All you need to do is listen.

God Bless

Dave

Sirus
Dec 24th 2008, 05:50 AM
yes, don't test the spirits to see if they be of God....
...sigh....

Veretax
Dec 24th 2008, 01:33 PM
Gotta correct you on a few things.


for example the OT says pharoah hardened his own heart, then it turns around and says God hardened his heart? which one is it? BOTH! lol God hardened pharoahs heart by being patient and giving him infinitre reasons and time and warnings to repent, but pharaoah was responsible for hardening his heart. God used circumstances to expose Pharaoahs wickedness, he did not force Pharoae to be wicked.


I think you are not reading the exodus account chronologically. Both Pharoah and God hardened Pharoah's heart. It was not an either or and If I remember it was like 5-7 times each is mentioned as having done it. God had determined to do something miraculous in egypt so that his name would be known, and after some of the plagues pharoah hardened his own heart and after a coulpe God hardened Pharoah's heart, then Pharoah relented for a moment, asked for it to be taken away, but would not let them go. This happened multiple times in the exodus account during the ten plagues, and the point I am making is that Yes Pharoah was chosen to be the one in his position when God called to set his people free, and god also after being ignored by Pharoah hardened his heart a few times even as pharoah again would harden his own heart, until finally after the tenth plague he let them go, but only for a bit, because he ...


Ex 14:5-9

5 Now it was told the king of Egypt that the people had fled, and the heart of Pharaoh and his servants was turned against the people; and they said, "Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?" 6 So he made ready his chariot and took his people with him. 7 Also, he took six hundred choice chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt with captains over every one of them. 8 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued the children of Israel; and the children of Israel went out with boldness. 9 So the Egyptians pursued them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, his horsemen and his army, and overtook them camping by the sea beside Pi Hahiroth, before Baal Zephon.


Notice that the egyptians and Pharoah turned against them and then God hardened Pharoah again so taht he pursued them and died in the red sea. I think you see my point now.





what i hope everybody takes out from this thread is the hunger to study the word of God more closley than what others tell us

the way i see it in Scripture:

God is sovreign in that everything is under his control (this is key)

God is sovreign in that he can override the "free will" of a man


In my understanding of the bible there are two forms of Will that God has, one is his Soverign will the other is his Moral Will. Mankind absent from Christ lives outside of God's Moral Will.



i think there is a slight misunderstanding of "free will"

i may be wrong but i believe "free will" was a term coined by a humanist scholar.

free will means you can choose whatever you want. good or bad.

it seems scripture teaches bound will. man is free to choose whatever he wants, however apart from God he will use his "freedom" to choose evil and sin and folly. man apart from life in God "freely chooses" death and sin and folly and rebellion

anything done apart from faith is sin

feeding the poor apart from faith is sin
being a nice guy apart from faith is sin
even when unsaved men do good it is sin, because it is not done in faith and thanksgiving and glory to God. even if an unsaved man does good so that God will be pleased, apart from faith, it is sin, because we are justified by faith in the work of Gods son. We cannot earn our way

scripture talks about us having a cold heart that needs to be removed and a new heart that needs to be gained

I believe you are treadding a thin line there. The bible does not say that ALL we do is Sin. Sin is transgression of the Law, what it does say though is that even our best works as sinners are like filthy rags to God. That is used as an illustration to demonstrate how far sin separates us from God, to help us understand our sinful condition however consider this:

Mt 7:11 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=mt+7:11&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1)
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! Christ said this, so clearly it is possible to do "good things" even as a sinner, but they don't account to righteousness or balance out the sin, for no amount of good works can do that. Thus is why Christ had to suffer an die on the Cross.


Now I have a different understanding of Free Will. Jesus said noone comes to the Father except the


Mt 11:27 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=mt+11:27&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1)
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Jesus spoke that noone calls unless the father draws, and I believe that absent God's calling man would not know he needed to turn to God. However, I believe that Call is present even in Creation, yet man still chooses to live in sin. (Romans 1) As someone else already noted ignorance of the law does not excuse Sin in God's eyes, only Christ's sacrifice can cover our Sin.

Secondly, I believe God's words have power. He spake the entire world into existence. Jesus while on the lake in the tempest, spoke and it was calmed. I believe that the power of the Gospel can reach all those who will listen and hear. So while you may argue that man cannot exercise free will because he is in a sinful state, I say he has many witnesses around him. Creation, the law and the prophets, Christ, and the Bible, if not also other christians. All are called to repentance, therefore all must make a choice to turn and repent or remain dead in their transgressions. I do not see a conflict of free will or God's Soverignty here.


Yeah, I really don't understand this at all. So Calvin's teaching (even though you don't agree with him on everything) is not better than some heretics teaching?

Paul warned about this

1 Corinthians 1:10-13
10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:1-4
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?
1 Corinthians 3:5-10
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, you are God's building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
We are not supposed to say well I'm of Pastor David or Brother John, I am of calvin, or luther, or spurgeon, edwards, or Sproul. We are not supposed to do this, because it creates "cliques" it creates division within the Church, and we are to be unified in the word.

VerticalReality
Dec 24th 2008, 02:54 PM
This thread has pretty much run its course. I'm going to close this one down.