Thread: No Longer Reformed... No Longer A Calvinist!
Admin
No Longer Reformed... No Longer A Calvinist!
Posted : 17 Mar, 2011 02:36 AM
No Longer Reformed... No Longer Calvinists,Why We No Longer Call Ourselves "Reformed" or "Calvinists" (From Outside the Camp Vol. 6, No. 2):applause:
As most of you know, we used to identify ourselves as "Reformed" and "Calvinists." We used these terms in the general sense to mean that we believed in the doctrines of grace, sometimes known by the acrostic TULIP: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. But as we have come to think more about these labels and what they convey (even unintentionally), we have decided that it is more harmful than helpful to use these labels. And with some new information we have found, the label "Calvinist" is actually not even consistent with a belief in the doctrines of grace.
"Reformed." The name "Reformed" comes from the "Protestant Reformation" and the "Reformers" who led it. Even before the more well-known "Reformation" of Luther and Calvin, there were other "Reformers" before this. But what does the word "reform" mean? It means "to improve by change." The "Reformation" sought to improve the Roman Catholic Whor- Church, to correct it, to modify it, to alter it - to reform it. This is absolutely contradictory to what God commands in His Word. God's Word says, "Because of this, 'come out from among them' and be separated,' says [the] Lord, 'and do not touch [the] unclean thing,' and I will receive you" (2 Corinthians 6:17).
The "Reformed" mindset would change 2 Corinthians 6:17 to say, "Because of this, 'reform them' says the Lord, 'and try to change the unclean thing into the clean thing,' and I will receive you." God does not command His people to reform the assembly of unbelievers, lawlessness, darkness, Belial, and idols; He commands His people to COME OUT and BE SEPARATED from them and to NOT TOUCH THEM. Coming out and separating and not touching is quite a different thing than reforming. If one is in a rotten house, coming totally out of that house and living somewhere else is quite a different thing than attempting to rehabilitate the house while continuing to live in it. God's word also says, "And I heard another voice out of Heaven saying, My people, come out of her, that you may not share in her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues" (Revelation 18:4).
The "Reformed" mindset would change Revelation 18:4 to say, "And I heard another voice out of Heaven saying, My people, reform her, rebuke her for her sins while remaining in Babylon to try to get it back on the right path." God does not command His people to reform Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of the Harlots and of the Abominations of the Earth; He commands His people to COME OUT of her. And what of those who do not come out of her? They are partakers in her sins and will be partakers of her judgment. As 2 John 11 says, the one who speaks peace to one bringing a false gospel is a partaker - a sharer - in the evil deeds of the one bringing a false gospel. Now anyone familiar with the Roman Catholic Whor- Church knows that well before the "Reformation," there was no true gospel there. They had been promulgating the devil's doctrine of salvation conditioned on the sinner for a long, long time.
The Roman Catholic Whor- Church was absolutely corrupt, through and through. False doctrine reigned. Idolatry, blasphemy, murder, fornication, and all manner of evil was the norm. This was truly a haven of harlots, a synagogue of Satan, a dwelling place of demons, a filthy, unclean, unholy entity if ever there was one, and it continues to be so today. This is not something that is to be reformed. It is to be abhorred, shunned, rejected, eschewed, repudiated, renounced, and forsaken. "COME OUT," God says. God does NOT say "reform."
Today, we have people who are advocating for a "modern reformation." What this means to most is that the "church" of today (meaning all professing Christians, to them) is in need of a "reformation" like in the days of Luther and Calvin. This call for "reformation" is mostly coming from people who profess to believe the doctrines of grace (and who call themselves "Reformed" or "Calvinists"). What they do not realize is that the vast majority of professing Christian churches and professing Christians are just as much part of the Great Whor- as the Roman Catholics are. At the same time they are calling for "Reformation," they are calling those who believe a false gospel their brothers in Christ. Unless God saves them and shows them that these synagogues of Satan are full of evil people, their supposed "Reformation" is just an attempt to make unregenerate Arminians into unregenerate Calvinists.
If God regenerates someone who has been in a false church (whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, Arminian or Calvinist, Baptist or Presbyterian or Independent), what is that person to do? As soon as it is known that this church preaches or tolerates a false gospel, that person is to LEAVE. He is not to stay and try to reform the church. He may witness to his former fellow churchgoers, he may expose the church and its doctrines as false, but he is not to be a part of that church any more. If he stays in that church, indicating that this church is a true church and preaches true doctrine and that his fellow church-goers are his brothers and sisters in Christ, then he is a participant in - a sharer in - their sins.
Think of this analogy: Suppose a man is a member of a homosexual advocacy group. Now suppose that this man is regenerated by God. Will this man stay a part of the homosexual advocacy group that promotes and defends the homosexual lifestyle? Will he try to reform it into a Christian group? Of course not. He will COME OUT of it and REPUDIATE it. So it is with someone who is a member of a synagogue of Satan.
False gospel doctrine is just as horrific, just as disgusting, just as repulsive, just as vile, just as evil, just as wicked as homosexuality. In fact, Jesus said that it would be more tolerant for the Sodomites in Judgment Day than for those who reject the true gospel (Matthew 10:14-15). Whereas before, we called ourselves "Reformed" to show that we believe the doctrines of grace, we now realize that there is too much more that is implied in this word to justify its use to identify true Christians.
"Calvinist." The name "Calvinist" comes from the name of the most famous "Reformer," John Calvin. Calvin's name is used in one of the nicknames for the doctrines of grace, which is the "Five Points of Calvinism." The "Five Points of Calvinism" were formulated in response to the "Five Points of Arminianism," named after James Arminius. Therein lies one of the problems. To counter the doctrines of a man and his followers, the coiners of the name "Calvinism" used a name that implies the very same thing as "Arminianism," which is that the doctrines were of a man and his followers. When a man's name is attached to a set of doctrines, then it is implied that the doctrines originated with this man. Thus, the whole "Calvinism-Arminianism" controversy becomes merely one in which opinions of man are debated: "Calvinism" emphasizes the sovereignty of God, while "Arminianism" emphasizes the responsibility of man, all within the pale of true Christianity.
As the God-hater A.A. Hodge said, "The difference between the best of either class is one of emphasis rather than of essential principle." People say, "I am of the Calvinist (or Reformed) persuasion (or tradition)." (See the Heterodoxy Hall of Shame in Volume 3, Number 1.) It becomes nothing more than a persuasion, an opinion, an inclination, a leaning, based on the doctrines of a man and his followers. The logical conclusion of such thinking is that the "Calvinism-Arminianism" debate is nothing but divisive, partisan bickering between Christians over non-essential doctrine. Since they both consider the other to be Christians, then being in separate churches is nothing but schism based on a party spirit. If the "Calvinists" believe that the "Arminians" are their brothers in Christ, then, if they were consistent, they should join the "Arminian" churches.
If the universal atonement and free-willism of the "Arminians" is not a vital difference, then separating over such non-essentials is sin. "For when one may say, Truly I am of Paul, and another, I of Apollos; are you not fleshly?" (1 Corinthians 3:4). But for us who are Christians, we do not follow the doctrines of men. That is what the God-hating Pharisees did (Matthew 15:9).
We follow the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9). The doctrines known as the "Five Points of Calvinism" did not originate in the sixteenth century with John Calvin or in the seventeenth century with the Canons of Dordt. They are doctrines from the Word of God. They are NOT the "Five Points of Calvinism." The tolerant "Calvinists" can go on bickering with their brothers in Satan, the "Arminians," all the while embracing them as brothers in Christ, but the CHRISTIANS will believe and proclaim the doctrine of CHRIST. Their boast will be in the cross of Christ ALONE, which makes the only difference between salvation and damnation.
Finally, to describe a belief in the doctrines of the name "Calvinism" implies that Calvin believed the doctrines of grace and that those who believe the doctrines of grace believe what Calvin believed. We have recently found out that Calvin did not even believe all of the doctrines of grace. In fact, he did not believe the very heart of the gospel, which is the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ.
Needless to say, we were shocked and saddened when we discovered this. But the proofs are incontrovertible. (Note that the proofs below do not merely depend on Calvin's use of the word "world" outside of the context in which he used it, which could be taken many different ways.) Contrary to William Cunningham's statement that "There is not, then, we are persuaded, satisfactory evidence that Calvin held the doctrine of a universal, unlimited, or indefinite atonement" (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, p. 398), the quotes below cannot be explained in any other way than universal atonement. [It is interesting to note that Cunningham also stated, "Now it is true, that we do not find in Calvin's writings explicit statements as to any limitation in the object of the atonement, or in the number of those for whom Christ died; and no Calvinist, not even Dr. Twisse, the great champion of high Supralapsarianism, has ever denied that there is a sense in which it may be affirmed that Christ died for all men" (p. 396).
If we take Cunningham's version of Calvinism - that NO Calvinist has ever denied that there is a sense in which Christ died for everyone without exception - then we are certainly FAR from being Calvinists, as is every Christian.] The following are quotes from John Calvin, each followed by an explanation of what he was saying. You will find that what he was saying cannot be explained in any other logical way. John Calvin was an unregenerate man when he made these statements. Those "converts" from Roman Catholicism who believed what he said about the atonement were doing nothing more than going from the Roman Catholic Whor- Church into the Protestant Whor- Church. They were just going from wicked Roman Catholic universal atonement to wicked Protestant universal atonement, from being lost Roman Catholics to being lost Protestants. The rest f the article can be found at: www.outsidethecamp.org/norefcal.htm
:dancingp: James, you make me laugh!:ROFL: you are too funny, and that's why I love ya.
Firstly, I did not go all over the internet to find this article, tis was given to me to read, and I thought I would post it. There are things even in this article I disagree with, as in when this dued calls the church whor-.
Secondlt, I'm not all aover the place in my biblica correct voews. And the only points I agree with are those that Calvin states that is correct as far as the Bible has sated. As I have always stated on this forum, Calvin was in search of his OWn faith when he wrote is thoguhts. He was confused and was tring to figure out God for himself, and Arminius came alog and took waht Calvin had written and tried to correct it, and it he too, was a bit off in his own thepolgy.
Thirdly, I don't follow man's theology about what God has already said in His word. I don't listen nor argue with what man has to say about salvation, grace or God, or who Jesus died for, and why He died, or what His grace is all about, only the cross. I know these thing.
Finally, any child with the silghtest understandign when reading the word would know that, when God called his people the elect r chosen , He was not speaking about electing them over anyone else. He's speaking abotu those who have chosen His Son. He made this decision before the earth was form that WHOSOEVER BELIEVS IN HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, WOULD NOT PERISH!
This is what Calvin didn't understand and was trying to understand in his own knowledge, not knowledge givent o him from God. Calvin did not have spiritual knowledge or much wisdom or undersatnding into God's revealed word. Evn if eh was serious in his intent. He relyied much on his own knowledge and understanign and pride of his knowledge.
Same as when you speak, there isn't much spiritual insight in the scriptures, just posting scriptures does not provid3 spiritual inght. Waht is God saying within the pasgges brigns understanding. Posting sctiprues without explaning them as to how they hook up is not revelation of what God is saying, isn't good enoguh. Every passage should point to God, and not Calvin and his thoughts about God. I follow Jesus and what the Bible teaches, not man and his teachings. Idepend on God's revelation, not man's interpretation, man gets it all wrong. As I've always said on this forum. anytin there are arguments about what the bible has to say, somebody isnt listening... Because the Hoylk Spriit isn't the AUTHOR r of confusion... but the devil is! so go figure
But I have the faith to know that One day soon, I will be posting a piecey ou have written stating that you too, had it all wrong, but first God Himself must open your understanding into scritpure, so that you will not use them as in a robot manner, trying to explain grace or election.
But this still doesn't change my love toward you because at least you are providing your case with support. Even if you can't explain the scritpure you post as they relate to what God is saying, or who they connect us to the cross, instead of Calvin. For you Calvin is your gospel... for me, Jesus and what God has to say about the cross is my gospel, and I know that I know that I know what I believe and in whom I believe, and what I speak when I can effectively discuss the Word with those who also know that they know the word of God.
As Paul says, when you should be teachers of the Word, you're still students and have a need to be taught, because you're still in the basic elmentary things as unskilled in the word of righteousness immature babes, instead of discussing the mysterires of God, the deep things... Hebrews chapter 5.
I mean, How long and how much can you keep saying over and oever about Calvin as if he died for your sins, and never coming to the knowledge of what Calvin has written, nor what God has said about Himself, and not speak about what Jesus did or why the cross?
