Calvinism on the Sly

[BenjaminRandall]

Cards on the table: I'm an Arminian, specifically, a Reformation Arminian (not a Wesleyan Arminian--much closer to Arminius than many "Arminians").

One of the practical issues facing many American churches is the resurgence of Calvinism among Baptist pastors. Pastors flip over to a 5 point Calvinistic theology often while pastoring an Arminian or semi-Arminian church. In such cases, the pastor cannot simply come out and boldly state that he Jesus didn't die for some people. Consequently, he begins teaching Calvinism on the sly.

Part of Calvinism on the sly is to mute all phrases which teach a universal atonement. No longer does the newly converted pastor say to the people in the pew, "Jesus died for your sins." Instead, he makes very nuanced comments like, "Jesus died for sins" or "Jesus died for his people." He might even incorporate universal sounding comments like, "Jesus died for the world," with the caveat the "world" doesn't really mean "world." Since his congregation is ill-informed on these issues, his nuanced comments are accepted uncritically.

Such a pastor then starts teaching on the issues which are less obviously Calvinistic. For example, there will be a strong emphasis on Calvinistic particularities of Total Depravity, monergism, irresistibility of grace, and de-emphasis on faith as a condition of salvation. Still, the congregation is typically in neutral on these issues as well. One or two might raise questions, but they will still be entirely unsuspecting of how this is all prelude to limited atonement.

Finally, when the pastor thinks he has gained enough devoted followers and has laid a strong framework for the more offensive aspects of Calvinism, he will finally start teaching limited atonement more explicitly.
When the congregation finally figures out that their pastor no longer believes that Jesus died for the world, then chaos and argumentation breaks out. Ultimately, in most cases, there ends up being some sort of church split or the unpleasant departure of the pastor.

So, the ethical question arises: what should a pastor newly converted to Calvinism do if he is pastoring an Arminian or semi-Arminian church?

Should he resign?

Should he call a meeting of the church leaders and explicitly express his change of mind, and ask for permission to continue in his pulpit?

Should he keep it quiet and teach his newfound theology on the sly so as to eventually flip the congregation to a Calvinistic position?

Or is there another option?

I suppose these same ethical dilemmas would also face the Calvinist pastor ministering to a Calvinist congregation if he were to flip to an Arminian position.

 

[mlqurgw]

Cards on the table: I'm an Arminian, specifically, a Reformation Arminian (not a Wesleyan Arminian--much closer to Arminius than many "Arminians").

One of the practical issues facing many American churches is the resurgence of Calvinism among Baptist pastors. Pastors flip over to a 5 point Calvinistic theology often while pastoring an Arminian or semi-Arminian church. In such cases, the pastor cannot simply come out and boldly state that he Jesus didn't die for some people. Consequently, he begins teaching Calvinism on the sly.

Part of Calvinism on the sly is to mute all phrases which teach a universal atonement. No longer does the newly converted pastor say to the people in the pew, "Jesus died for your sins." Instead, he makes very nuanced comments like, "Jesus died for sins" or "Jesus died for his people." He might even incorporate universal sounding comments like, "Jesus died for the world," with the caveat the "world" doesn't really mean "world." Since his congregation is ill-informed on these issues, his nuanced comments are accepted uncritically.

Such a pastor then starts teaching on the issues which are less obviously Calvinistic. For example, there will be a strong emphasis on Calvinistic particularities of Total Depravity, monergism, irresistibility of grace, and de-emphasis on faith as a condition of salvation. Still, the congregation is typically in neutral on these issues as well. One or two might raise questions, but they will still be entirely unsuspecting of how this is all prelude to limited atonement.

Finally, when the pastor thinks he has gained enough devoted followers and has laid a strong framework for the more offensive aspects of Calvinism, he will finally start teaching limited atonement more explicitly.
When the congregation finally figures out that their pastor no longer believes that Jesus died for the world, then chaos and argumentation breaks out. Ultimately, in most cases, there ends up being some sort of church split or the unpleasant departure of the pastor.

So, the ethical question arises: what should a pastor newly converted to Calvinism do if he is pastoring an Arminian or semi-Arminian church?

Should he resign?

Should he call a meeting of the church leaders and explicitly express his change of mind, and ask for permission to continue in his pulpit?

Should he keep it quiet and teach his newfound theology on the sly so as to eventually flip the congregation to a Calvinistic position?

Or is there another option?

I suppose these same ethical dilemmas would also face the Calvinist pastor ministering to a Calvinist congregation if he were to flip to an Arminian position.

Any man who doesn't preach clearly and without compromise what he believes is not being honest. It probably means he is not called of God to pastor but is a hireling. I know of men who claim to believe the truth of God but will not preach it because they fear what will happen. If you fear what the truth will do you shouldn't be preaching. A man who believes something will preach it and not worry about the consequences to his livelyhood. God is able to take care of both him and the people he preaches to. I also know several men who were pastors in Arminian churches and came to the truth who did preach it clearly and where kicked out because of it. They are all faithful pastors of very strong congregations now. God is faithful to keep His servants and will not allow the wrath of man to harm them. Of course you need to understand that I do not believe that there is a difference of postions or opinions between the Doctrines of Grace and Arminianism. I believe they are two different faiths altogether. We do not worship the same God. I know that is blunt but I am convinced it is true. I have never hidden the fact from any here.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

But, what if I'm an Arminian who is actually elect? Would I still be serving a different God?

And, isn't it possible that someone who is elect could be simply mistaken about his theology?

And, isn't it true that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by correct theology?

 

[mlqurgw]

But, what if I'm an Arminian who is actually elect? Would I still be serving a different God?

And, isn't it possible that someone who is elect could be simply mistaken about his theology?

And, isn't it true that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by correct theology?

Do you really want to go there?

 

[heymikey80]

Should he call a meeting of the church leaders and explicitly express his change of mind, and ask for permission to continue in his pulpit?

This is as close as I'd come. However, there's no cause to ask for permission to continue -- in either direction. There is every cause to declare your viewpoint conscientiously before those who have called you, and to let them respond. Pastors who are closely connected with their congregations are unlikely to be "kicked out". They may ultimately be removed, though.

Very often the "kicked out" phrase is far, far overused. I've known pastors kicked out (for both good and bad reasons). They're walled off from their relationships in the church; they're removed for no good reason; they're not given a chance to continue. They're cut off.

I've also known others who conscientiously deliver the news, "I can't go on with this." In many cases here the response is not horror, but compassion. I've even known churches who try seriously to help the pastor find employment that is more consistent with his views.

The person isn't qualified to teach. But the person who shows the marks of a believer in faith and walk, that person remains a member of the Church of Christ.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Good thoughts, heymikey.

This issue involves ethical issues. Is it ethical for a pastor to subvert a church's stated doctrinal position?

In my denomination, as part of our code of ethics, if pastors have a change of theology which goes contrary to the denomination, we are ethically obliged to resign the church without attempting to subvert it.

This is rather a moot point in my denomination, so far as Calvinism and Arminianism is concerned, for we are broad enough for both sides. Individual churches might be committed one way or the other, but the denomination is not. This reflects our mutual conviction that, though we disagree on important issues, we still believe that we are brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[heymikey80]

This issue involves ethical issues. Is it ethical for a pastor to subvert a church's stated doctrinal position?

Of course it can be ethical, but it is not always ethical to subvert [in negative connotation] or reform [in positive] an established decision of a church. It's clear that Christianity is a religion involving subversion (cf. Heb 9:9). The question itself can't be answered unless more conditions are expressed. There are definitely right and wrong ways of going about change in the Church of Christ. It lies predominantly in the intents of the people involved and the purity of their pursuit of change.

In my denomination, as part of our code of ethics, if pastors have a change of theology which goes contrary to the denomination, we are ethically obliged to resign the church without attempting to subvert it.

My denomination has a list of essentials over which not simply the teachers but every member must agree. Lack of agreement there results in removal from denomination.

This is rather a moot point in my denomination, so far as Calvinism and Arminianism is concerned, for we are broad enough for both sides. Individual churches might be committed one way or the other, but the denomination is not. This reflects our mutual conviction that, though we disagree on important issues, we still believe that we are brothers and sisters in Christ.

Is it really moot? What about when the Arminian or Calvinist position of the teacher changes against the particular church the pastor is ministering in? It wouldn't really be a moot point in your denomination at that point, would it? Does your denomination counsel pastors about changing the particular church's position on this point?

 

[BenjaminRandall]

What the ethics are, is that a church hires the pastor on the presumption of theological compatibility. If the pastor flips, it would seem to be the ethical thing to explain his change of heart openly, and proffer his resignation.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Heymikey writes,

Is it really moot? What about when the Arminian or Calvinist position of the teacher changes against the particular church the pastor is ministering in? It wouldn't really be a moot point in your denomination at that point, would it?

Well, it would be moot so far as the denomination is concerned. I think, given the denominational ethos, the flip-flopped pastor would probably be encouraged by his peers and denominational advisors to start looking for a new church if his newfound theology is explicitly contrary to his church.

But, for the most part, my denomination suffers greatly from theological ignorance. Only once in 15 years have I ever been asked if I believed even in eternal security, let alone the extent of the atonement!

They ask me if I believe in the Bible, miracles, and issues on abortion and homosexuality and charismata. My previous denomination was about the absolute opposite.

Odd, isn't it?

 

[heymikey80]

Do you think most denominations tend to recapitulate Roger Williams' experience in Massachussets and then Rhode Island? I've often wondered.

I find those kinds of things a little disconcerting. I don't think assimilation or separation are the proper initial responses to such things at least, so it kind of leaves me cold deciding between these two. On the other hand, organizations have never been very good at much else, have they!

 

[cfmember]

Calvinism tried to invade a church here through the group known as Acts 29 (no such thing), which reminds me of the 2 Pet 2:1-3 warning that men will come in privily (secretly) and teach damnable heresies, denying the Lord who bought them.....etc. The result was a total scattering of the church members. None were left. And it left both the 'soft' pastor and the Calvinist without an audience. Although it was destructive, it served to educate many as to what Calvinism really is.

I believe a pastor actually has no say in the matter concerning what he should do if he switches faiths. He should merely resign. If he doesn't, then when the men and women of the church 'hear him' preaching heresy, then he's out. But assuming the man is somewhat honest, he should at least tell the people he's switched faiths. I say this because the faith of Calvinism and the faith of Arminianism are just the opposite. Hence, one is true and the other false. Somebody is woefully wrong, and that's no small matter. The mission of the Calvinists is to reform the faith of all the Southern Baptist churches, and we can only hope that the pastors are at least as knowledgable in the Scriptures as many in his congregation, so he can know the difference. That won't happen in my church, I'll promise you. I'm watching, and listening. (Besides, our current pastor is strongly opposed to the teachings of Mr. Calvin.)

Off the issue for just a moment, someone above made this statement.... "And, isn't it true that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by correct theology?" Goodness, are you saying we're not saved by believing the truth (corrrect theology)? Remember, the Word of God "is" the faith (truth) of believers, and where the doctrine of salvation is concerned, it has to be correct (true). If you're believing a lie, your faith in that lie won't save you. Being saved through faith means just that, through believing the truth. (2 Thes 2:13)

 

[heymikey80]

In Baptist circles Calvinists are simply taking back territory they once lost to man-centered revivalism. English Baptists largely come from the London Baptists, who were Calvinistic in their view of salvation.

Arminians are the "invaders".

But then, I don't see them as invasive, but rather people who need to know better. That is, brothers needing better information.

Conflicts in churches cause people to take sides. But it is supremely unwise to associate people with the theologies they espouse. People are sinners. It's quite clear there were two sides in this conflict, and two sides fought to the destruction of Christ's church.


Faith is relying on another: on the Person of Jesus Christ. There's no heresy, no division among those who rely on Jesus Christ over whether their theology is Calvinism or Arminianism. As for Pelagianism, there are some issues there because Pelagianism impacts faith and tends to deprive the significance of this relying on Jesus. Many American churches are simply Pelagian, too. We could discuss that as well.

Ah. So what's your doctrine of prayer? And you don't believe people themselves are personally responsible for their faith? Clearly some teachings of Mr. Calvin have got through.

No, you are not saved by believing correct theological statements. In fact you can't. Assume for a moment that the theology you believe is totally true. Then every disagreement with anyone else is a point of truth or falsehood, and endangers your eternal soul. It was on this basis that Roger Williams separated from everyone in the Boston Community and journeyed out to found Rhode Island: because he and his wife were in his view the only people with correct theology -- and he was suspicious of his wife.

The reality is radically different. Take a peek at Scripture -- Romans 14 -- and you'll see what I mean.

We rely on the Perfect Savior. Because we're not perfect.

 

[cfmember]

heymikey80,

You say.... "Faith is relying on another: on the Person of Jesus Christ." You didn't go quite far enough. A believer's faith relies on "the truth" of Jesus Christ", which is just the opposite of the 'faith' of those who have reformed the Word of God to fit a faith of their own.

It's silly to talk about "Pelagianism" and all the other words that are meant to confuse. Let's keep it simple.

Lastly, you said.... "No, you are not saved by believing correct theological statements. In fact you can't. Assume for a moment that the theology you believe is totally true. Then every disagreement with anyone else is a point of truth or falsehood, and endangers your eternal soul."

First, your statement didn't make sense. You agree my theology is totally true, then say that my disagreeing with falsehood endangers my soul? Fighting against lies and for the truth endangers my soul? The Bible says that "belief in the truth" is done for salvation (1 Thes 2:13). If my theology is true, as you say, then my soul is not in danger, but rather the soul's of those who teach/preach falsehood (lies) are.

Remember...the only way to hell is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and that's saying that God is a liar (the Word of God is false), whereas one's own word is true. It's just switching places with the Sovereign God, for example, when Christ says he died for all mankind and Mr. Calvin knew better than to think that was the truth, so he taught just the opposite, that Christ "did not" die for all mankind. Mr. Calvin became sovereign to his followers. That all men have the free will to choose him or any other man to be their spiritual leader is obvious. But men either speak the truth of God, or the lies of the devil. We all need to be sure we've not elected a liar for our leader. Because the just judge, Jesus, tells us he judges as he hears. (John 5:30)

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Cfmember

Which Church was that, it is my understanding that Acts 29 has been very effective.

The Pastor is not "changing Faith" the SB was founded on Calvinistic doctrine. Which by the way has been making a big come back in the convention. It has even forced a re-print of Boyce's theology.

By the grace of God, you might be interested in Frank Pages comments about the connfrence a few weeks ago about the SBC and Calvinism.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day,

Frank Page:

The research portrays what many have imagined to be true. While around 10 percent of rank-and-file Southern Baptist pastors would consider themselves to be five-point Calvinists, a sizeable portion (29 percent) of recent seminary graduates would identify themselves in that particular way. In fact, over 60 percent of graduates of one of our seminaries identify themselves as five-point Calvinists.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27050

In Him,

Bill
​

 

[cfmember]

BBAS 64, Thank you for providing the link. I think the most important thing Mr. Page said was at the end, when he defined the problem .....to see what the Word of God says about salvation. He obviously understands that Calvinism and its opponents preach opposite gospels of salvation.

Because of that, I don't know why Mr. Page, who admits he is "not a Calvinist", would want to encourage dialogue with those with whose doctrines he disagrees. It would be no different from him saying that although he's not a Mormon, he encourages dialogue with them about working together in the ministry. But it begs a good question, why can't Mr. Page accept Calvinism as true? Maybe he's a closet Calvinist, privily encouraging a naughty union.

As for baptism rates indicating little difference in church growth between Calvinist and non-Calvinist led churches, this is not an accurate way to get to the truth, since the non-Calvinist churches don't baptize their infants, but only those able to profess belief (probably because of the condition given for baptism in Acts 8:36-38, whereas in Calvinism baptism is unconditional).

Acts 29 was effective in the particular church I mentioned, they destroyed it. We can't let that continue to happen. And I find it hard to believe that the SB were ever followers of John Calvin. If Calvinism is being taught in the SB seminiaries, then what can I say, the SB watchmen are dead.

 

[heymikey80]

I went perfectly far enough. A believer relies on the truth that is Christ Jesus. That reliance is faith. The believer does not need more than that reliance.

A 2-year-old does not need to know how the rescue helicopter stays in the air, nor even that it's not his grip that holds him to the rescuer, but the rescuer's grip that holds him. The 2-year-old is equally saved if he thinks it's all magic and miraculous. The critical instrument is relying on the rescuer -- nothing else.

Okay, simply -- your actions don't save you. None of them do. You abilities don't save you -- not your ability to know right doctrine, nor your ability to think good thoughts, nor your ability to accept truth. The actor in your salvation is Jesus, not you. The instrument that connects you to Him is reliance -- syn. faith -- not more.

It makes fine sense. If you become convinced someone else is true, then you've departed from that point and moment where the theology you believe is totally true. That is -- every change in your theology is an admission that either you weren't saved before -- or you aren't saved now.

But of course that's absurd. Scripture abhors this very idea by saying you can know you're saved. Scripture states you can live with error (cf Rom 14) and yet the Lord will still make you able to stand for Him and thus be saved.

Then everyone has committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which shall not be forgiven. We're all crispy critters. You and me.

This idea contradicts Scripture. So the only alternative: your assertion is false.

Chapter & verse.

Another error. Mr. Calvin points out the fact that Scripture does not say Christ died for all mankind -- if by that you mean for the salvation of all mankind. Because if God intended Christ to die to save everyone -- everyone would then be saved.

There's the "switching places" with God. Where does Scripture say men have free will? Doesn't Scripture instead say "no one seeks God"? And doesn't Scripture instead say again and again and again, that God chooses us? Which is more prominent in Scripture: our choice or His?

So who has a will that is truly free? Us or God?

Clearly no one can choose Christ when all your conditions for salvation are summed up. As you've pointed out, in your view someone must have a perfect theology. And Scripture says no one does.

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13 "Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known. Romans 3
​

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Dr, Page though not a calvinist, does have avery firm understanding of the historical nature in the development of the SBC. He encourages the dialogue because unlike you he has the abilty to define the historical contribution calvinist have made to the proclamaintion of the gospel.

Consider these Calvinist...

William Carey
A. Judson
John Bunyun
John Gill
A.W Pink
C.H Spurgeon
J.P. Boyce
B. Keach
J. Edwards
Albert Mohler
John Newton


For a calvinist baptism is "unconditional"

Not sure where you got this fallacy, and foolish notion...

Go read CH's sermons on Baptism, of the 1689 Bapist confession. You will find your assertions here unfounded.

What you have missed for some unknow reason when the SBC's history screams of it.
As the SBC was started by a bunch of Calvinist. You may find it hard to believe, none the less history will bare this out.

Here is the founding document for the first seminary of the SBC:

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/aop/english.htm

Really can not get "more" calvinistic" than that.

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

In Him,

Bill

 

[cfmember]

heymikey80, Your thinking appears disorganized.

BBAS 64, The list of men doesn't impress me, especially since Jesus said he needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. (John 2:25) That's probably why we don't see any called "Arminians" preaching "Arminianism".

Mr. Spurgeon also said.... "I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else." (In Defence of Calvinism) Too bad he didn't want to defend Jesus instead.

But I will defend Mr. Spurgeon's God-given right to exercise his own free will to disagree with the apostle Paul, who says: "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 1 Cor 2:2

As for Mr. Spurgeon's idea that Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else, Jesus should (and will) have the last word:

"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?" John 5:43,44


P.S.

(What is the Calvinist's 'condition' for infant baptism? Has he/she first believed? Or does he/she just have an unconditional 'birth right' to salvation?

(The SBC forced a reprint of Boyce's theology? Sounds like something Mr. Calvin would do. Not good. By the way, do you mean James Montgommery Boice, the Calvinist who came oh so close to destroying the Universal Bible Study Fellowship by adding his own thoughts and ways to the original work of it's founder and author, Ms. Johnson? Or is there another one?)

 

[cfmember]

Bill (BBAS 64), Do you not wonder why I stand against Calvinism? Let me tell you why.

The very idea (thought of John Calvin and his people) that the righteous God and Father of Jesus Christ would conspire before the foundation of the world to condemn any one or all of my children to eternal hellfire without judgment (a hearing) is unthinkable to me (and to the Bible as well).

I don't believe the thoughts and ways of Mr. Calvin were even close to those of God. Of my own free will I will not identify myself with the Sovereign of John Calvin. I've learned too much from the righteous Law of God that Judgment, Equity, and Justice and Truth are of utmost importance to Him and that Jesus is a Just Judge, hearing every man before he judges him (John 5:30).

God said to Israel (Calvin's elect): "And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment." Isaiah 59:14,15

"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!" Isa 10:1,2