Are Calvary Chapel and Vineyard virtually the same?

[The Unforgettable Fire]

Have been attending a local CC church plant recently and I really like it. Just curious.

 

[Faulty]

I go to a Calvary Chapel myself.

I believe the Vineyard is the result of a split between Chuck Smith and John Wimber in the 70's. I don't know enough what the differences are, but if they were the same, then there would have been no need for a split.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Have been attending a local CC church plant recently and I really like it. Just curious.

I'd say "no, they are not the same". Although, I believe Vineyard is a split from Calvary Chapel. My own personal opinion, I think Vineyard has much better music and they flow in the Spirit during their services and (at least the one I attended) did flow in the gift of tongues and interpretation. What I remember of Calvary Chapel, they do not (it could vary from church to church though like in Vineyard). Like any church both have good/not so good churches. The one I attended in Whittier and in San Bernardino, Calif were good. One that I attended in central FL was a bit scary. Then there was one in Tampa that was good. I only attended CC in Costa Mesa, Calif on Friday and Saturday nights when they had the free concerts. That was ages ago when Tom Stipe was the MC. He is a great teacher and I think later moved on to Vineyard.

In the event you do not know, Jim B is a Vineyard pastor.

 

[Simon Peter]

As others have said, CC and the Vineyard used to be the same church, but they split because of theological differences.

CC took a more conservative path and the Vineyard a more charismatic direction.

CC want a more orderly Sunday morning service and usually discourage the use of most spiritual gifts in the service. CC's stance is that they believe in all gifts, but they don't want them causing disruption in a service.

CC claim to allow more freedom in other meetings, say small groups, but in practice you will see a lot less of the gifts of the spirit in CC than you would in the Vineyard.

However, you will see more 'charismania' and 'abuse/misuse' of the gifts in Vineyard that you would see in CC.

FTR: I've spent many years in both CC and Vineyard churches.



peace,
Simon

 

[Always in His Presence]

Go to the movements home page and compare their statements of faith and you will immediately see the differences.

Calvary Chapel's mirrors 99% of the teneants of faith for any Charismatic movement/denomination. There is really no difference at all.

Vineyards reads like an adventure novel focusing soley on Kingdom principles that came out of the Fuller bunch in the 70's and 80's

each group has a rather loose hold on their adherents, with the Vineyard allowing a wide latitude of teachings to be included, as long as they do not go against the kingdom stuff.

Calvary Chapels that I have visisted are the best Baptist style churches I have ever been in.

I've never visited a Vineyard that did not march to the beat of a different drummer - even from church to church.

 

[Faulty]

I find CC churches to be very good in their teaching for the most part.

Besides the one I attend, there are some others that made my podcast list, they would be Costa Mesa, Chino Hills, and Knoxville.

 

[Simon Peter]

Go to the movements home page and compare their statements of faith and you will immediately see the differences.

Calvary Chapel's mirrors 99% of the teneants of faith for any Charismatic movement/denomination. There is really no difference at all.

Vineyards reads like an adventure novel focusing soley on Kingdom principles that came out of the Fuller bunch in the 70's and 80's

each group has a rather loose hold on their adherents, with the Vineyard allowing a wide latitude of teachings to be included, as long as they do not go against the kingdom stuff.

Calvary Chapels that I have visisted are the best Baptist style churches I have ever been in.

I disagree with most of this post.

Website statements of faith are usually dumbed down to the point of being useless. Churches normally just want to let you know they believe the basics, and don't want to scare anyone off by posting detailed beliefs.

There's often not much differnce between most SoFs you find online, whether it's a WoF, Pentecostal, Charismatic etc.

However, in the case of CC and the Vineyard, they both actually tell you their end times beliefs, which is all too rare. And I forgot to mention this in my earlier post as one of their theological differences.

CC are pre-millennial, where the Vineyard is post-millennial, which is quite an important theological difference; and more evidence that CC does NOT mirror 99% of Charismatic churches. The vast majority of Charismatic churches are post-millennial, the vast majority of Pentecostal churches are pre-millennial.

peace,
Simon

 

[Always in His Presence]

I disagree with most of this post.

Website statements of faith are usually dumbed down to the point of being useless. Churches normally just want to let you know they believe the basics, and don't want to scare anyone off by posting detailed beliefs.

There's often not much differnce between most SoFs you find online, whether it's a WoF, Pentecostal, Charismatic etc.

However, in the case of CC and the Vineyard, they both actually tell you their end times beliefs, which is all too rare. And I forgot to mention this in my earlier post as one of their theological differences.

CC are pre-millennial, where the Vineyard is post-millennial, which is quite an important theological difference; and more evidence that CC does NOT mirror 99% of Charismatic churches. The vast majority of Charismatic churches are post-millennial, the vast majority of Pentecostal churches are pre-millennial.

peace,
Simon

End time theology is really a small part of a movements tenants of faith. It's the 1% I alluded to that doesn't match mailing charismatic circles.

Other than that, I also disagree with most of your post.

So there we have it. Diferring opinions.

 

[Simon Peter]

End time theology is really a small part of a movements tenants of faith. It's the 1% I alluded to that doesn't match mailing charismatic circles.

ONE Percent?

Let's see, you think that issues like:

Replacement theology. Where post-mills believe the church has permanently replaced Israel, and all her promises and covenants now belong to the church. But pre-mills believe God still has a plan for Israel, independantly from the church.

The 1000 year reign of Christ. Post-mills believe we are living in it now, that it's not a literal 1000 years. Pre-mills believe the 1000 years are a literal reign of a Christ on earth after His return.

The whole book of Revelation. Post mills believe it's mostly a history book, just about all of it took place in AD 70. Pre-mills believe most of Revelation has yet to happen.

Literal interpretation or allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Post-mills prefer an allegorical, where pre-mills prefer a more literal interpretation of Scripture.

The great falling away and the tribulation

The future triumph of the church

Dominionism

The Anti-christ

Wickedness increasing in the end times

The rebuilding of the Temple

The end times judgments of God

End times Christians suffering

The rapture of the church

The Second coming of Christ

Manifest sons of God

Latter rain

The nations of the world regarding global geo-politics

These things are looked at completely differently by post-mills and pre-mills, I mean 180 degrees in many cases!
Yet you think all of these issues amount to ONE percent of church theology?
I understand that these differences are hard to quanitfy, but I do know it's a WHOLE lot more than ONE percent. I'd say perhaps a THIRD, maybe more if you include all the other beliefs these things effect.

Do you really think they split up over differences of ONE percent?




peace,
Simon

 

[Always in His Presence]

ONE Percent?
!
Yet you think all of these issues amount to ONE percent of church theology?

peace,
Simon

When you compare them to issues such as Salvation, The Holy Spirit, Sanctification, The doctrine of the Godhead, The doctrine of The divinity of Christ.

All of which, unlike the ones you posted, are central to theology and righteous living, all of which , unlike the ones you posted are plainly taught, not open to wide interpretation.

Yes, I consider it one percent, if not less.

 

[Simon Peter]

When you compare them to issues such as Salvation, The Holy Spirit, Sanctification, The doctrine of the Godhead, The doctrine of The divinity of Christ.

All of which, unlike the ones you posted, are central to theology and righteous living, all of which , unlike the ones you posted are plainly taught, not open to wide interpretation.

Yes, I consider it one percent, if not less.

Are you saying literal opposed to allogorical interpretations of the scriptures are not central to theology?

And don't tell me that Sanctification and even salvation are not widely interpreted. Talking of which, the Roman Catholic church (the largest Christian church with over 1 billion members) favours allegorical interpretation, by the way.

I don't deny the importance of the 5 issues you listed, but I disagree that those 5 issues make up 99% of Christian doctrine; while the more than one dozen issues I listed amount to only ONE percent of the Christian faith. That claim makes me wonder if we read the same Bible?

The Bible - Old and NT - is filled with prophecies about the second coming of Christ; it's filled with the story of Israel, the Jews, and God's promises for them. And in the NT the theme of the end times is found in almost every book. The book of Revelation is widely seen as one of the most important books in the NT.

How on earth you can relegate those many issues, not to a even a sub-plot, but to less than one percent of the faith is beyond me.

Let me guess, you're post-millennial?

peace,
simon

 

[Always in His Presence]

No, I am pan-millennial It will pan out the way God wants it, until then, it says 14 times in the NT that we will not know when the end will come, so I don't focus on what we are not supposed to know.

 

[Simon Peter]

No, I am pan-millennial It will pan out the way God wants it, until then, it says 14 times in the NT that we will not know when the end will come, so I don't focus on what we are not supposed to know.

No. that's not what the scriptures say at all. We are often warned to watch for the end, but we must not date set (the day and the hour).

Besides, date setting is a stawman argument. And 'pan-millennial' is most often used by pastor's who don't want to admit what they really believe.

I'm just asking you if you believe the 1000 year reign is now or in the future?

Or how about Israel, does God have a future plan for them independant from the church?

Or how about Revelation, is it about the future or was it mostly fulfilled in AD70?

How about the Anti-Christ, a future flesh and blood powerful leader?

What about the church, is her future one of powerful political influence or will she be persecuted and perhaps even almost stamped out?


If a pastor doesn't have an opinion on at least one or two of these questions then - quite honestly - they shouldn't be a pastor. And you have to wonder who on earth ordained them.

I have more respect for someone who scripturally defends a position I disagree with, than someone who just says it's 'unknowable', or it doesn't matter.


peace,
Simon

 

[PaladinValer]

They are related, but they are not the same. The both are from theology started in the 1960's and I believe there was a disagreement with the founders that caused the split.

You'll find them to be nearly the same.

 

[Always in His Presence]

No. that's not what the scriptures say at all. We are often warned to watch for the end, but we must not date set (the day and the hour).

Besides, date setting is a stawman argument. And 'pan-millennial' is most often used by pastor's who don't want to admit what they really believe.

I'm just asking you if you believe the 1000 year reign is now or in the future?

Or how about Israel, does God have a future plan for them independant from the church?

Or how about Revelation, is it about the future or was it mostly fulfilled in AD70?

How about the Anti-Christ, a future flesh and blood powerful leader?

What about the church, is her future one of powerful political influence or will she be persecuted and perhaps even almost stamped out?


If a pastor doesn't have an opinion on at least one or two of these questions then - quite honestly - they shouldn't be a pastor. And you have to wonder who on earth ordained them.

I have more respect for someone who scripturally defends a position I disagree with, than someone who just says it's 'unknowable', or it doesn't matter.


peace,
Simon

As a pastor, I have a lot of opinions on many parts of theology.

What's important and primary in my ministry is what helps people at the point of their greatest needs.

The people I have ministered to over the last 25 years have struggled with things like forgiveness, sanctification, anger management, home and family issues, healing, debt problems and other very real issues.

I don't think I have ever counseled someone on end times issues. I've never sat and wept with a family member because their husband doesnt understand the millennium. I've never counseled a husband and wife who marriage was going to break up over their view of the anti Christ. I've never sat with a mom and dad who were afraid their child was going down the wrong path with his beliefs on Isreal.

In other words, when it comes to the issues of life, Escotology just isn't a major issue.

And if I am looking for a church, I want one who will help me with the major issues of life.

Hope that help clarify my position.

 

[gord44]

No, I am pan-millennial It will pan out the way God wants it, until then, it says 14 times in the NT that we will not know when the end will come, so I don't focus on what we are not supposed to know.

 

[Always in His Presence]

When I taught theology, the cyllabus I used was as follows:

Bibliology - The Doctrine of the scriptures
Theology -The Doctrine of God
Anthropology - The Doctrine of Man
Harmatology - The Doctrine of Sin
Soteriology - The Doctrine of Salvation
Pneumatology - The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
The Doctrine of Healing
Ecclesiology - The Doctrine of the Church
Angelology - The Doctrine of Angels
And of course
Eschatology - The Doctrine of Last Things

The entire study was broken into two semesters and earned 12 credit hours

9 out of ten have nothing to do with end time.

 

[Simon Peter]

Calvary Chapel's mirrors 99% of the teneants of faith for any Charismatic movement/denomination. There is really no difference at all.

Tenets of the faith.

End time theology is really a small part of a movements tenants of faith. It's the 1% I alluded to...

Tenets of the Faith.

In other words, when it comes to the issues of life, Escotology just isn't a major issue.

Issues of life!

It appears you're trying to play some sort of shell game with me. For second time you've introduced a strawman argument. It's almost like you're trying to avoid the original issue.

Of course escatology has little to do with life issues. But we weren't talking about life issues were we. We were talking about tenets of the faith.

Back on track here. It's normal Chrisitian practice to use the scripture to determine tenets, not your experience in counseling.

So why not answer my questions? Do you seriously have no opinion on any of the issues I raised?

Edit:

9 out of ten have nothing to do with end time.

Does this mean you've revised your position from ONE percent to TEN percent?

peace,
Simon

 

[Always in His Presence]

Thanks for the spell check!



As for all the strawman blah blah, I'm not looking for a fight, or even a discussion, in the grand scope of what God is doing, it is just not worth my time.

 

[Simon Peter]

As for all the strawman blah blah, I'm not looking for a fight, or even a discussion, in the grand scope of what God is doing, it is just not worth my time.

I hear you.

I apologise for my part in turning it into an 'argument' opposed to a discussion. And I honour your work in counseling. Christianity is ultimately all about people.

My frustration was with the claim that end times theology does not matter, or is only a hundredth of the Bible.

The switch from allegorical to literal interpretation is what largely drove the reformation, for which you and I owe our very salvation.

If you genuinely don't have any idea what you believe about the end times, I would challenge you to ask God for guidance and to read a few passages or books, and you just never know, God may bring about reformation, or at least open your eyes to scriptures you've not understood before. And one passage can often throw light on another, even revealing deeper meaning to salvation, sanctification, the Godhead etc.


peace,
simon