Calvinist Pastors being up front about their doctrine.

[Revmitchell]

It has been asked "Why should Calvinist Pastors be upr front about their doctrine?"


The better question is why would they not be up front about it?

What is there to hide?

Are they so prideful that they do not want to disclose this?

Or do they have an agenda to take a church that is not Calvinist and turn it into one?

Why hide that fact? And how can a Spirit filled conscience live with doing so?

 

[SolaSaint]

Rev,

Who is saying this?

 

[Revmitchell]

Rev,

Who is saying this?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=84515

I will add that I do know that there are some Calvinist pastors who avoid disclosing this information so as to find a church and turn it "around".

 

[steaver]

I oftentimes listen to John MacArthur's radio sermons. Monday he is having one on why people reject Jesus Christ. If he would be true to his beliefs about TULIP it would go something like this; "Folks, why do people reject the Lord Jesus Christ? I'll tell you why, because God will not let them accept Him!"

But then I don't know what he will do with the other 29 minutes of air time. But I suspect he will just give another Arminian sermon on this subject, which he always does. :tongue3:

 

[Bronconagurski]

It has been asked "Why should Calvinist Pastors be upr front about their doctrine?"


The better question is why would they not be up front about it?

What is there to hide?

Are they so prideful that they do not want to disclose this?

Or do they have an agenda to take a church that is not Calvinist and turn it into one?

Why hide that fact? And how can a Spirit filled conscience live with doing so?

Agree someone should be upfront, but a pulpit committee should ask as well if it matters to the church.

 

[Revmitchell]

Agree someone should be upfront, but a pulpit committee should ask as well if it matters to the church.

Yep, if a sneaky Calvinist gets through the church is certainly at fault as well. The church needs to ask specific questions about doctrine.

There is a large church in Memphis that was thrown into turmoil and much damage was done by a young Calvinist who was not upfront about his views on church governance and tried to push the church to switch to an elder led church.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=84515

I will add that I do know that there are some Calvinist pastors who avoid disclosing this information so as to find a church and turn it "around".

Seriously.... who would want to? Are we back to this SBC crap again? Look if a church is too stupid to ask the right questions, thats their problem. & if you didnt like the guy, do what the whole real world does.....fire him!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I oftentimes listen to John MacArthur's radio sermons. Monday he is having one on why people reject Jesus Christ. If he would be true to his beliefs about TULIP it would go something like this; "Folks, why do people reject the Lord Jesus Christ? I'll tell you why, because God will not let them accept Him!"

But then I don't know what he will do with the other 29 minutes of air time. But I suspect he will just give another Arminian sermon on this subject, which he always does. :tongue3:

Again....not true. They rejected God from the very beginning so why would he not just pass them by?

 

[steaver]

Again....not true. They rejected God from the very beginning so why would he not just pass them by?

What part is not true? I'll see what Calvinist Mac has to say Monday and let you know. I'm pretty sure he won't sound like a Calvinist but rather an Arminian, but we'll see.

 

[Yeshua1]

It has been asked "Why should Calvinist Pastors be upr front about their doctrine?"


The better question is why would they not be up front about it?

What is there to hide?

Are they so prideful that they do not want to disclose this?

Or do they have an agenda to take a church that is not Calvinist and turn it into one?

Why hide that fact? And how can a Spirit filled conscience live with doing so?

maybe because to some it gives a bad taste , much as term Baptist does?

By the way, which calvinist? the reformed, one like myself who is also Dispy, as is mcArthur, or?

 

[Revmitchell]

maybe because to some it gives a bad taste , much as term Baptist does?

Trying to falsely equate the two terms in no way relieves anyone from their responsibility of being up front.

By the way, which calvinist? the reformed, one like myself who is also Dispy, as is mcArthur, or?

It doesn't really matter does it. Everyone should be honest and up front. Failure to do so is purely dishonest.

 

[Yeshua1]

maybe because to some it gives a bad taste , much as term Baptist does?

Trying to falsely equate the two terms in no way relieves anyone from their responsibility of being up front.


It doesn't really matter does it. Everyone should be honest and up front. Failure to do so is purely dishonest.

Agree with you about being honest, but also know that the term "calvinist" causes some to react very negatively, most of the time against a misunderstanding of the actual theology!

 

[saturneptune]

Seriously.... who would want to? Are we back to this SBC crap again? Look if a church is too stupid to ask the right questions, thats their problem. & if you didnt like the guy, do what the whole real world does.....fire him!

I think I posted this in another thread, but yes, it is the responsibility of the local church to screen candidates before they are called. That is why there is two screening, the pulpit committee and the church. Another thing I do not understand, what is the emphasis on Calvinism as a major issue. As I said before, we have had both types of pastors, and we have both camps in the membership. Never once was this an issue in calling a pastor. Now, in our church, communion administration is. If a pastor is a strict closed communion person, the interview is over.

 

[Revmitchell]

maybe because to some it gives a bad taste , much as term Baptist does?

Agree with you about being honest, but also know that the term "calvinist" causes some to react very negatively, most of the time against a misunderstanding of the actual theology!

OK? How does that change the need to be honest?

 

[Revmitchell]

I think I posted this in another thread, but yes, it is the responsibility of the local church to screen candidates before they are called. That is why there is two screening, the pulpit committee and the church. Another thing I do not understand, what is the emphasis on Calvinism as a major issue. As I said before, we have had both types of pastors, and we have both camps in the membership. Never once was this an issue in calling a pastor. Now, in our church, communion administration is. If a pastor is a strict closed communion person, the interview is over.

There is a very good reason. Some churches do not want Calvinism taught. And some Calvinist pastors intentionally withhold the fact that they are Calvinist so as to 1.) finally find a church and 2.) turn it into a Calvinist church.

 

[saturneptune]

There is a very good reason. Some churches do not want Calvinism taught. And some Calvinist pastors intentionally withhold the fact that they are Calvinist so as to 1.) finally find a church and 2.) turn it into a Calvinist church.

Good reasoning, but if our local church ever thought this was an issue, or any other issue, and had questioned the pastor about the issue, we would expect a direct, honest answer. To have to revisit this after he is in the office would be a bad sign that either the pastor was deceptive, and/or the church did not do its job during the calling process.

There was a situation in another county where closed communion was a big issue. (pro closed communion). During the hiring, the pastor was asked about his stance on closed communion, to which he replyed, "I have served in churches that practiced closed communion." He was called, and shortly after, tried to gather members to support open. He had been for open all along and gave a smoke and mirrors answer. Both he and the church failed to do what they should. A more direct question should have been asked after that answer, but it was not. I use this as an example, because I am for open myself. The pastor only lasted about a year.

 

[Bronconagurski]

OK? How does that change the need to be honest?

While I was in the Navy I learned that locks were made to keep honest people honest. Well, when it comes to pulpit committees, questions were made to keep honest applicants honest. Some churches have you write out your testimony before joining. I have never been on a pulpit committee, but if I ever am, you can believe I would cover every base imaginable so there are no surprises.

 

[Revmitchell]

Good reasoning, but if our local church ever thought this was an issue, or any other issue, and had questioned the pastor about the issue, we would expect a direct, honest answer. To have to revisit this after he is in the office would be a bad sign that either the pastor was deceptive, and/or the church did not do its job during the calling process.

The unfortunate part of this is so many search committees are focused on personalities and what they personally want in a pastor. That is certainly part of the equation, but pastors are and should be held to a higher standard and need to be up front about where they are currently at in their doctrine. And that would go for any pastor on any issue.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The unfortunate part of this is so many search committees are focused on personalities and what they personally want in a pastor. That is certainly part of the equation, but pastors are and should be held to a higher standard and need to be up front about where they are currently at in their doctrine. And that would go for any pastor on any issue.

:thumbsup:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

While I was in the Navy I learned that locks were made to keep honest people honest. Well, when it comes to pulpit committees, questions were made to keep honest applicants honest. Some churches have you write out your testimony before joining. I have never been on a pulpit committee, but if I ever am, you can believe I would cover every base imaginable so there are no surprises.

:thumbsup: