Apparently, the Calvary Chapel Movement is on a campaign to rid itself of reformed theology.
http://calvarychapeltheology.com/Art...VARYCHAPEL.pdf
Anybody want to pick this apart and comment? I think it is interesting. I don't really think Calvary folk have a strong theological identity.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingMarcus Kibbe - "thanks" for this post
I wonder if they'll have opposition blogsites like Reformed Calvary Chapelites? Maybe they're more defined vby what they don't adhere to. I used to listen to Pastor Chuck Smith quite a bit back in the day. Other than his prophecy shows, he usually went through the bible in order of the books, if I remember correct.
I am the Lone Locust of the Apocalypse! Think of me when you look to the night sky!
It is sometimes easier to articulate an unfavorable position someone else holds than their own understanding of what they believe. Maybe that's the same thing as saying some don't have a strong theological identity.
I guess they've found where the wall of their tent is.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Here's their basics:
http://calvarychapel.com/about/
I am the Lone Locust of the Apocalypse! Think of me when you look to the night sky!
Interesting to see them draw this theological line in the sand. During 2 years of high school I considered Calvary Albuquerque my home church.
Perhaps we should make the same rule in the CotN.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
They don't sound much different than some of the fundamental Southern Baptist churches in our area:
We believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate translation from the original ancient text. It is from this translation that we establish our doctrine and Statement of Faith.
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ instituted two ordinances for the church: (a) full immersion water baptism of believers, and (b) the Lord's Supper.
We believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church where all believers will meet the Lord in the air and be taken out of this world prior to the Tribulation that will come upon the earth.
Loving God . . . Loving others.Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm not sure you win ground in the "grace" category by calling your doctrine "biblical" and calling the other guy's doctrine something else.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 8 Thanks, 0 Laughing
These surprised me. I admit that these position are similar to many fundamentalists but in my rather limited experience the Calvary chapel folks I have encountered do not have the "hard" attitude that has accompanied many of the Fundamentalist I have known that have held to these positions.Originally Posted by Jon Bemis
Last edited by Craig Laughlin; April 18th, 2012 at 02:42 PM.
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-EschenbachPost Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Good comparison. I think the Calvary Chapel is a charismatic version of the Southern Baptists. Simplistic, but largely true.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Inside Calvary Chapel, one of the biggest critics of Calvinism has been George Bryson. One of his books is available free here: The Five Points of Calvinism, Weighed and Found Wanting. It's a decent read. It gives you a feel for the theology of Calvary Chapel. Very Baptist, but also Arminian in some ways. They believe that Jesus died for everyone, but also hold to eternal security.
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
The typical Calvary Church is really a melting pot of folks from across the evangelical spectrum. They embrace a preaching/teaching methodology that was popularized by J. Vernon McGee. They go verse, by verse, chapter, by chapter through the Bible. Chuck Smith pretty much made that the hallmark of what it means to be a Calvary Church.Good comparison. I think the Calvary Chapel is a charismatic version of the Southern Baptists. Simplistic, but largely true.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Interesting. Though I agree with Ryan on the whole "Biblical" thing.
Top Nazarene leaders have spoken clearly and publicly against Calvinism in the past. It's clearly not who we are.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Also, what does it even mean for something to be "Biblical" and how can we all be so sure that our reading is in fact "Biblical"? More to the point, why is "Biblical" so much more preferable to "Historic Christian"? That is, if the Church has believed something historically and as such read Scripture a certain way, what does it mean for us to then propose a "Biblical" interpretation? What does that mean in light of historical realities within the Church?
It seems more and more to me that the term "Biblical" is a meaningless word which really is code for "my."
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Essentially, I'm convicted more and more each day that Christianity is not a religion where theology is "arrived at", or "discovered." Instead, it is one where theology is received. This frames our conversations much differently, especially use of the term "Biblical."
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
When Skip Heizig was there? Heard him when he was visiting the Costa Mesa Calvary Chapel. (seems I have heard he has since returned to California somewhere)
Was surprised to read that, too, re KJV. On that page somewhere seems there was a recent date, so perhaps revised since I hung out there in early 90's.
Right. Was rather at home there, even being one of their "counselors" for awhile.
And as Bob Hunter indicated, there seem to be folks "from all over the map"/spectrum there. Perhaps some are more charismatic than others, too, but have not seen that either in California, or when we visited a bit in Phoenix between trying Naz churches (where we ended up).
One picture I noticed on Calvary's website, since it depicts Pastor Chuck as we remember him, I will post here. He seemed to be a friendly, caring individual, who smiled a lot.I cannot seem to find it now! Well, anyway, there is a link here to a series on their site that has a more-current picture (he has aged some, but haven't we all since early 90's
http://calvarychapel.com/blog/we-all-need-love
Last edited by Gina Stevenson; April 19th, 2012 at 12:24 PM. Reason: Typo
Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one.
~ Stella Adler ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It takes a great deal of maturity to accept that trying to eliminate all risk eliminates life.
~ Susan Lapin ~Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Yep, although I was more involved with the fledgling "metal" church that was a part there back in my days of playing in a metal band
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
So, you were "rowdy" Butts, playing that heavy metal, huh?Yep, although I was more involved with the fledgling "metal" church that was a part there back in my days of playing in a metal band
Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one.
~ Stella Adler ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It takes a great deal of maturity to accept that trying to eliminate all risk eliminates life.
~ Susan Lapin ~Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 LaughingMonte Butts - thanks for this funny post
Thanks for the reading Kevin. I especially appreciate one of the points he makes about the differences in understanding particular terms and concepts between a "True Calvinist" and others. Predestination in the true Calvinist's mind is double predestination and refers to God's sovereign choice of assigning destinies to people. Arminian "Predestination" is based upon God's foreknowledge of events and choices in a persons life. Hence, if there is such a place as an eternal hell, it has (as C.S.Lewis alluded) "locks on the inside" or if you like, an understanding that those who end up there also "choose" their preferred destiny.
Likewise with regard to Eternal Security, the "True Calvinist" will insist that God keeps them secure, because it is his will to do so! The Arminian will say, "sure we are kept by God's power and grace, but we are responsible to keep close to and trust in our Saviour. God always allows us the "right" to walk away!
IMHO, "True Calvinism" is based upon God's sovereign and Judicial choice...... whereas Arminianism is based more upon dynamic relationships.
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This is a farce, David. He gives the impression that a "True Calvinist" believes that both election and reprobation are carried out in the same way by God and have no essential differences. This isn't true. The term double predestination is most often used as a caricature by critics of Reformed teaching, and not by Reformed theologians themselves.
Two points:
1) Scripture never speaks of our faith as the reason God chose (predestined) us.
2) This does not give people free choice. If God can look in the future and see that person A will believe, and person B will not, then those facts are already fixed (determined). If we assume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which we must), then it is absolutely certain that person A will believe and person B will not. There is no way their lives could turn out any differently than this. Their destinies are determined, for they could not be otherwise.
This is a "True Calvinist" position... not surprising given that Lewis was a Calvinist.
True, the "True Calvinist" insists that those who have been truly born again will be kept by God's power and will persevere as Christians until the end, and they also insist that those who persevere to the end have been truly born again. Continuing in the Christian life is one of the evidences that a person is truly born again. When rightly understood, this should cause genuine worry (fear) in the hearts of any who are "backsliding" or straying from Christ. If one falls away from their profession of faith in Christ and obedience to him, the evidence that they are giving is that they are not saved, and never really were saved. Calvinist and Arminians will both counsel a "backslider" in the same way. For all practical purposes, this is a moot point.
Marcus, you kind of make my argument over on another thread with your first two sentences, but I digress even before I start.
Concerning the bolded portion, especially the underlined portion, "which we must." Seems to me that reading a little about Calvinism that for the Calvinist this statement is true, maybe even a given. But it is far too much of a stretch for everyone, to insist that evryone from every traditon must hold to this is incorrect. I certainly do not hold to it and know others who do not either.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I wonder, surely we (you and I) Nazarenes are not here to defend the Calvinistic teaching we (you and I) both reject, are we? George might do so, but he clearly professes to be a Calvinist, which a Nazarene never could be.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Other than T-U-L-I-P, what are we disagreeing with?
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Laughing
It's not about "defending" Calvinist teaching, Hans. It's about "understanding" and "fairly" representing a theological view you may disagree with. All credibility is lost when a theological position is intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Agreed, whenever possible, state a persons or groups position in their words, or, if in your words, in their intended meaning, in as reasonably unbiased* manner as you can muster. *Reasonably unbiased means that you have a system for identifying and managing your biases and that you use that system to the best of your ability.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Have whatever wording or representation you want Marcus. It's your's. Have at it.
In the end, it is all the same, it means the same, its result is the same.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Agreed, and I've heard Roger Olson stress this as well. He believes that Arminianism is more persuasive, when Calvinism is presented accurately. While we may not be Calvinists ourselves, we should endeavor to understand even while we do not agree. Wesley once said that we should never hurl the term Calvinism as if it were an insult. Perhaps he felt bad for his treatment of Toplady in his letters to George Merryfield?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Wesley once referred to himself as being "a hairsbreadth away from Calvinism". He recognized the very orthodox thoughts of Calvin and how they intersected along the same lines as those of Methodism. The Church is truly much more unified in its beliefs than we tend to realize, we have just gotten so used to quarreling over other things that we forgot how similar we are on the basic essentials.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
It's all I see you do. All the time. Which is rather strange for Nazarenes, as you and I are.
Ah, "YOU may disagree with". You don't?
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Now this all sounds very, very nice, but surely you know that the big difference in the Calvinistic/Arminian debate is what Arminians consider to be the logical consequence of Calvinist theology, which of course they strongly deny - God becoming the author of sin. Blasphemy, at least. The heart of James Arminius' objection is exactly this: he tried to defend God's righteousness.
So how are we to reject a theology of which we Nazarenes (and all Arminians) think the logical outcome is abhorrent, which of course they themselves will always strongly deny? They will always say we don't represent them fairly, and find all kinds of intricate reasonings to try and avoid what is obvious.
For the record, obviously Calvinists will say the logical consequence of Arminian theology is that it is not all by grace, no "Sola Gratia". Well, that point is true, in a similar way as Peter taking Jesus' hand was the cause of him not drowning.
Nothing. It's quite enough, I'd say. See above.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Even Wesley can be quoted quite selectively. I submit that just mentioning this, is misrepresenting Wesley's view on the issue. I'm sure that is not your intention, but the effect is the same.
There's a wealth of material to quote from that would suggest that the difference is rather huge. From the poems about the Horrible Decree till the Arminian Magazine. His main reason being practical:
From "Predestionation Calmly Considered"
86. This is my grand objection to the doctrine of reprobation, or (which is
the same) unconditional election. That it is an error, I know; because, if
this were true, the whole Scripture must be false. But it is not only for this
— because it is an error — that I so earnestly oppose it, but because it is
an error of so pernicious consequence to the souls of men; because it
directly and naturally tends to hinder the inward work of God in every
stage of it.
88. The observing these melancholy examples day by day, this dreadful
havoc which the devil makes of souls, especially of those who had begun
to run well, by means of this anti-scriptural doctrine, constrains me to
oppose it from the same principle whereon I labor to save souls from
destruction. Nor is it sufficient to ask, Are there not also many who wrest
the opposite doctrine to their own destruction? If there are, that is nothing
to the point in question; for that is not the case here. Here is no wresting
at all: The doctrine of absolute predestination naturally leads to the
chambers of death.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 7 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Yes, you could say that Michael, but you'd also have to admit Wesley had all of this to say:
Seems pretty clear. Blasphemy. I concur.
Also, Wesley says the same thing I said. Make all the meaningless distinctions between "Reprobated" and "Elected" as you want, Marcus.... it means the same thing in the end. A distinction without a difference.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 9 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Quite true, I pointed it out only as a response to the "don't use Calvinism as an insult" idea which was attributed to Wesley. I wasn't trying to make a statement of his view on the issue, though I could see where it appear that way potentially.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
For the record, I made my comment coming out of a class dealing with theology in the era of Reformation, really seeing where our beliefs intersect or differ from Protestantism and Catholicism (and hence why Nazarene's are truly neither one completely). I wasn't even responding to the thought/belief of predestination.
Last edited by Michael Flowers; April 20th, 2012 at 09:33 AM.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
But the God who fails to save his lost sheep, who fails to fend off the wolf, who knows not his flock by name and number, who lets his sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf because he loves them so much, is any less blasphemous? You're fooling yourself.
For a really good reformation theologian that fits this neither catholic nor protestant, I highly recommend Richard Hooker.
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
What are you, Marcus? Are you a Nazarene? Or just a stealth Calvinist trying to created havoc here? I want a straight answer.
As to your question: "Love Wins".
And giving people freedom isn't blasphemous. Sending them to hell to burn in all eternity, without them having a choice, is too blasphemous for words. It's disgusting, outrageous, devilish and it makes one vomit just to think about it. And I apologize for not even remotely being able to convey how I feel. If such a god existed, let him be cursed.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 7 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Well, we can quibble all we want.... the fact remains as this:
- Orthodox Christianity has always (2,000 years) had a soteriology within which Calvinist predestination does not fit, but Arminian does.
- Catholic Christianity, for the large, large majority of its history has had a soteriology within which Calvinist predestination does not fit, and has even called the Catholic equivalent (Jansenism) a "heresy".
- Wesleyan Christianity has always held that Calvinist soteriology is blasphemy.
There are other groups, too, but I'll let that suffice for now. The fact is that the majority of Christianity has almost always considered this soteriology to be absolutely false. Once more, I'll stick with the historic expression of the Christian faith. If you actually somehow believe that Scriptures contradict this, and teach something else, more power to you.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This sheep metaphor is a reference that many Calvinists use to support their argument for predestination and eternal security. I've heard this before, nothing new. Come up with something original. Using this metaphor as such has severe limitations and will actually unmake your point.
In fact, I found that same argument over on wikipedia, or at least the metaphor is used to make a point about limited atonement. Again, this is abuse of a biblical metaphor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I am not comfortable with saying that Calvinistic soteriology is heretical, although I do not endorse it.
However, I agree with Bob that the sheep metaphor has its limits. It is indeed a metaphor, but it is one that Jesus uses in regard to protection and provision for "His sheep." So, the question is about HOW we are "His sheep" (see John 10, for instance). More specifically, how do we become "His sheep"? Wesleyans and Calvinists have traditionally had strong disagreements about that part.
I do think the reminders Ben gives regarding the fact that Calvinism has always had opponents is a good reminder....
Charles
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
