If my pastor is a Calvinist and I'm not, should I change churches?

Ehhhh, just to be fair, Blackbird, Calvinist preachers don't do that. They get their material straight from the Bible, they just interpret it a little differently.

 

I've had a bunch of non-Cal pastors and a couple of Cals. Not once have I ever heard the Cal pastors cite John Calvin in either their teaching or preaching.

Nor did they ever preach a sermon on Calvinism. However, everybody knew where they stood.

 

True. I have never heard Calvin mentioned in any sermon in my life.

 

He may call himself a calvinist, but if your pastor really has that attitude, he is displaying hypercalvinism, not calvinism. There are quite a few members of the Baptist Board (including myself) whose theology is calvinistic, yet who put outreach/evangelism very high on their agenda. I found the following distinction between calvinism and hypercalvinism, on the web at: http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/HyperCalvinism/

Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism were both among the historical errors battled by Charles Spurgeon, who was himself a 5-point Calvinist. He vigilantly fought these twin errors on both sides of the spectrum. One of Hyper-Calvinism's main errors is to declare that, because of God's sovereignty, we should not evangelize the lost. Spurgeon rejected such nonsense as do the large majority of people who would call themselves Calvinists today.​

I know you said you did not want this to turn into a Cal - non Cal debate but unless we agree on what we mean by the terms we use, we are going to have a very frustrating time. (That is a general observation, and certainly not a criticism of your OP).


A Happy and "spiritually-settled" New Year to you!

 

I agree here----I am not a "Calvinist" (nor am I Arminian)but I have a dear friend who is(a Calvinist)-----one of my dearest "preacher buddies"----he's probably done more to encourage me to "stay the course" in my preaching ministry than any other "Non-Cal" I know!!

This same preacher buddy---at one particular church he was in----was treated like the "slime of the earth"----reason I knew---it was all over the county how the church treated him

One particular day I was visiting him in his home(church parsonage)---I walked in and it was freezin' cold----I asked him "Dude--does your heat work??"

It worked---but he had to pay the electric bill out of his salary so he had it set low

I noticed he had a wood burning heater----"Dude! You burn wood in that heater???"

Turns out he did----BUT the deacons were responsible for having the wood cut for him----and they had been particularly lazy about it

The next day----he had a cord of wood sitting neatly stacked up outside ready to burn----his supplier??? His "Non-Calvinist" preacher friend!!!

The reason we don't have a Calvin forum is because of the "Carnal" behaviour sometimes put on exibition!!!!!

 

I hope you were not making the (false) equation:

5-point calvinist = no concern for lost sinners.

​

To quote the song, "It ain't necessarily so!" In fact it ain't so at all! Such thinking (no concern for the lost) has, sadly, happened, but it is not calvinism - it is hypercalvinism.
Happy New Year!

 

I've been in lots of churches. I've never heard Calvin mentioned either. In many, I couldn't tell whether the pastor was a Calvinist or not from his sermons - I had to get to know the man outside of the Sunday morning setting.

Being a Calvinist doesn't equate with non-mission-mindess. This above any other thing mentioned in this thread would heavily lead me to consider moving memberships.

William Carey must be rolling in his grave.

 

Not all but a lot of the Calvinist churches around here will tell you they are Calvinist or reformed in their phone book add or the sign out front. one of the 5 or 6 largest churches around here is a Calvinist church and what I would call pentecostal or CCM music. I went one time and heard , Jesus is the Son of Mary for about 9 min. and left, they were still going on with their song. As of yet I've never heard their pastor preach but he is getting quite a large group.

 

Not taking anything from Bitsy's post---but the question is for all readers---both Calvinist and Non-----heres the Q------Then why are we worried about whos calvinist and who isn't????

 

For the most part I'm not and I don't think most are, however it is a problem when a pastor comes in and does not say what his theology is( and I believe it is on the search group to find this out and we will in the future) and then after 5 or 6 years try and bring in a different theology than of the church.

I think the problem is when a person is militant over their theology and put down everyone who disagrees with him. I'm not Calvinistic and don't bring it up but if ask if I believe such and such, I'll give an answer.

 

Willowdee:

I am equally as sorry for my caustic remark and offer my sincerest apologies. I wrote that while having just finished conversing with a caller (I work in a call center) who thought that just because we were his Internet Service Provider every problem he has with his computer, OS to browser, is our concern and when I told him I can't help him with a router he bought and connected to our modem he called me every conceivable four letter cuss word you can think of, and made me feel like all I've ever fed my family came from duping people.

At any rate, my civil answer will be this:

As long as he preaches Christ and him crucified, God Holy and man sinful, whether he is a Calvinist or not should be of no concern to you.

Calvinism is his theology. When he dies he leaves Calvinism behind. When a Calvinist, Arminian, or Primitive Baptist such as myself dies, God will not hand out questions and quizzes in heaven to see who gives the best answer.

There are people on this board, and other boards, who treat and speak of Calvinists like they were the spawn of Satan himself, leprous, hateworthy people whom Christians should have nothing to do with, and the same is true of some Calvinists speaking about those who hold to the views of Arminius.

That to me is sad.

Paul fought not against the doctrines of other Christians in his time, but against the gnostics that were trying to creep in and replace Christ.

He did not go around trying to fight other Christians and believers, except when they no longer preached Christ and followed Christ as he did. When that happened, he spared no words.

Again, my deepest apologies.

 

• Your original post was not an accurate representation of the situation.
• Your preacher is not preaching the Word, but condemning those who are not preaching the Word.
• He, in fact, lied to you when you asked him if he were Calvinistic in his beliefs but has preached at least one Calvinistic sermon.
• The congregation does not trust your pastor in his view, but he is unapproachable.
• You are beginning to accept predestination as fact.
• You most likely will not leave this church.

Have I accurately summarized your post?

 

That has been a problem in many Baptist churches in the southeast. But thank God that most pastors are very up front with their theology, both Calvinist and noncalvinist. Anbd we should be able to get along and worship together. I'm a noncalviist and have enjoyed J. Vernon McGeee and many other from their camp and if I recall correctly W. A. Criswell was calvinistic, I don't know if he still held to it at the end or not.

 

Are you sure the word he used was efficient and not a word like effective? Efficient does not make any sense to me in that context.

I could not sit under a pastor who spent most of their time attacking other groups and people. I agree with you that the better way to challenge heresy is to teach biblical orthodoxy so that members will recognize heresy when it comes their way. If this view is shared with the leadership of your church, it should be mentioned to him personally and in his evaluation sessions if those exist. Pastors need constructive feedback to grow and to adjust to meet the needs of their congregation.

I find that those who spend large amounts of their time attacking others are usually insecure about their faith and need the opposition to help them define their own positions.

 

It's a common way for Calvinists to word it. It means "effective." It doesn't really say anything, because five-pointers and Arminians can also say that the atonement is sufficient for all, but not efficient for all. A more exact wording of Calvinism might be "suffcient for all, efficient for the elect." If he's a four pointer, it's kinda like saying "I believe that 3+2=5, but I do not believe that 5-3=2. In other words, it's just a way to be a Calvinist while claiming that you're not, in order to avoid reproach. (Or maybe he's just confused.)

Sure, if you're elect, God will regenerate you and cause you to believe. No you worry.

But the God who ordained the ends also ordained the means to those ends. So hearing a false gospel might be a means to an end in the Lake of Fire. So you'd best avoid bad means if you don't want to go to a bad end. Of course, if you're predestined to a good end, you will wind up using good means.

If you don't know whether or not you're predestined to a good end, Calvinists recommend that you repent and believe the gospel anyway, just in case. More often than not, you wind up discovering that you're elect. At least, it will seem that way -- but there's no way to know absolutely, so St. Paul commanded us to examine ourselves whether we be in the faith.

If you finally fall away, it will prove that you were deceived all that time that you thought that you were elect. Bummer, but so it goes sometimes. If you haven't fallen away yet, better keep using those means to a good end. And that includes staying away from heresy.

You're very welcome.