Calvinist & Arminian churches

[KingsGambit]

This isn't a deep question by any means; just something I've been curious about.

A few times on here, I have seen people make reference to attending "Calvinist churches", etc. I've never attended any such thing; the church I've attended most of my life is part of a denomination that takes no stance on election, and the issue has simply never come up that I've been aware of at a local level, either. In college, I attended a church that was affiliated with an officially Arminian denomination, but the related issues also never directly came up while I was there.

Those of you who attend or have attended Calvinist (or Arminian, for that matter) churches, does this have much of a practical effect on what goes on in the church/sermons/etc.? At least from my lifelong mainline perspective, the concept of any secondary issue being pressed too hard seems foreign to me.

[LostSheep]

I attend a church with an officially Calvinist denomination (Congregationalist) but no, it has no discernible impact on the sermons, or anything else in fact that I can tell.

[theblueprint_Ni]

This isn't a deep question by any means; just something I've been curious about.

A few times on here, I have seen people make reference to attending "Calvinist churches", etc. I've never attended any such thing; the church I've attended most of my life is part of a denomination that takes no stance on election, and the issue has simply never come up that I've been aware of at a local level, either. In college, I attended a church that was affiliated with an officially Arminian denomination, but the related issues also never directly came up while I was there.

Those of you who attend or have attended Calvinist (or Arminian, for that matter) churches, does this have much of a practical effect on what goes on in the church/sermons/etc.? At least from my lifelong mainline perspective, the concept of any secondary issue being pressed too hard seems foreign to me.

It depends on the size of the church. The mega congregations usually avoid the dispute over election as much as possible. You can usually tell where the church stands based on its practices and how the pastor conducts the altar call if they even have one. If they don't, you can be almost sure that it's a Calvinist church. If at the close of the service the pastor tells people to close their eyes, raise their hands at the snap of his finger, and to step forward while no one is looking, you're probably looking at an Arminian church. Being aware of the doctrinal difference and how they've historically played out can give you insight into where the church stands. Practically speaking, there will be some differences but there need not be anything major. Both ought to be preaching the same gospel and concerning themselves with the lost. Of course, I'm speaking from the Southern Baptist realm which is pretty much split at the pastoral level on the Calvinist issue. The majority of church members are Arminian almost by default, but that's because most of them hardly understand even the most basic of doctrines.

I attend a church with an officially Calvinist denomination (Congregationalist) but no, it has no discernible impact on the sermons, or anything else in fact that I can tell.

Where are you from?

[LostSheep]

Where are you from?

I live in New England, in Connecticut.

[KingsGambit]

Thanks, theblueprint_Ni, for the insight.

My basic stance on the issue (coming from a Arminian standpoint, close to that of I.H. Marshall) is that it isn't really so important if/how a church aligns itself on the issue as long as it avoids borderline heretical extremes of either. For a Calvinist, that would be hyper-Calvinist coldness or a facile notion that if one is saved, nothing else they ever do again matters, and for an Arminian, that would be the notion that God plays no role in sanctification or protecting one, or one of works salvation. Within these bounds, I would have no serious problem with how any church conducted its business along these lines - as I tend to believe that the practical differences between responsible Calvinism and responsible Arminianism end up being smaller than often imagined.

[footwasher]

http://tominthebox.blogspot.in/2007/...ainst.html?m=1

Roflol!

[footwasher]

Examples of real damage caused by wrong doctrine:

Quote

Perfectionistic Christians may feel overwhelmed with anger toward God (for supposedly expecting so much of them) and toward themselves (for not being perfect). They may become depressed because they forget that we are called to rest in Christ rather than to be caught up in a never-ending round of activity.

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1993ii/J11-93c.htm


Quote

I tried to grab hold of myself. I thought, "Well, it's a good sign that I'm worried about this. Only true Christians really care about salvation." But then I began to take stock of my life, and I looked at my performance. My sins came pouring into my mind, and the more I looked at myself, the worse I felt. I thought, "Maybe it's really true. Maybe I'm not saved after all."

RC Sproul

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1997ii/Wilkin.html

[RBerman]

The presence of an altar call distinguishes the Baptist churches descended from the Second Great Awakening, though other sorts of Arminians (e.g. Methodists) don't usually have one.

I attend a Calvinist church, and the topic of predestination comes up regularly, albeit not weekly, in our sermons, songs, and other elements of worship.

[Littlejoe]

I attend a arminian church. The Assemblies of God were formed primarily from the Methodist church. Topics of Freewill come up pretty much weekly during sermons, sunday school etc. We have an "altar call" just about every Sunday morning...although usually Pastor has everyone bow their head and raise a hand, then has the whole congregation cite some kind of "sinners prayer"

I don't see how it could be otherwise that your basic theology of election and interaction with God could not come up frequently...

LJ

[Phat8594]

Those of you who attend or have attended Calvinist (or Arminian, for that matter) churches, does this have much of a practical effect on what goes on in the church/sermons/etc.? At least from my lifelong mainline perspective, the concept of any secondary issue being pressed too hard seems foreign to me.

It all depends on the church. Typically in a heavily leaning Reformed church (Calvinist) you will hear the topics of TULIP talked about quite frequently. For some churches, THAT is the gospel, because TULIP is the cornerstone of Calvinist theology on God's salvational grace. This at least was the case with my wife's first church...and several others (some OPC, some PCA, some Covenant Reformed, etc.) afterward.

I (along with my wife) have also found that altar calls are rarely (if ever) performed at heavily leaning Reformed churches, while they are more frequently done at arminian churches. Granted there are also some non-denom who rarely do them as well (maybe 3 to 5 times a year). Although I do not speak for all heavily leaning reformed churches, we typically found an uninterested, and almost contemptuous view amongst some of the congregation when it came to the idea of altar calls. But again, I stress some, as we also found many who actually came to know Christ through an altar call. And might I say, we stil have a lot of great, God-fearing friends at these churches. Although we disagree on soteriology, we do agree on a great deal...especially on the importance of living a Holy life in worship to our Father.

Of course, each church is different. However, at least in my experience, you can pretty much tell how much a church will preach about by their statement of faith. If there is a decent amount of the statement of faith dedicated to the Reformed view of election...then you will probably hear a decent amount about it in the sermons....if its only a blip, or not really mentioned at all (despite the pastor leaning reformed), then you will likely only hear a little about it. Same thing goes with churches that hold to a Arminian perspective.

For me, I just care that the gospel be preached to those who are lost....and as much as I love theology, I care more about hearing and being fed from the Word, than hearing a pastor's dissertation on theology each Sunday (whether Arminian or Calvinist).

[The Remonstrant]

This isn't a deep question by any means; just something I've been curious about.

A few times on here, I have seen people make reference to attending "Calvinist churches", etc. I've never attended any such thing; the church I've attended most of my life is part of a denomination that takes no stance on election, and the issue has simply never come up that I've been aware of at a local level, either.

I find that problematic. Unfortunately, it is extremely common for non-Calvinist congregations to avoid any serious discussion pertaining to issues such as divine predestination or election to salvation. Regardless of our interpretation of the biblical data, the doctrines are present, recurring and not obscure throughout NT (not to mention the election of Israel to service in the OT). Therefore, one might assume investigating such matters is not an entirely trivial pursuit

In college, I attended a church that was affiliated with an officially Arminian denomination, but the related issues also never directly came up while I was there.

That also is disconcerting. Predestination of election to salvation is to be studied along with perseverance, the scope of the atonement and all the other basics of soteriology.

Those of you who attend or have attended Calvinist (or Arminian, for that matter) churches, does this have much of a practical effect on what goes on in the church/sermons/etc.? At least from my lifelong mainline perspective, the concept of any secondary issue being pressed too hard seems foreign to me.

Everyone seems to have their own idea as to what issues fall under the "secondary" category. The current trend in evangelicalism has resulted in an increasingly minimalist list of essential doctrines. In other words, freedom of choice in what to believe as true or discount as false often appears to take precedence over an actually serious ontological search for truth (part of this being a negative side affect of postmodernism, though some good has resulted therefrom).

[KingsGambit]

Everyone seems to have their own idea as to what issues fall under the "secondary" category. The current trend in evangelicalism has resulted in an increasingly minimalist list of essential doctrines. In other words, freedom of choice in what to believe as true or discount as false often appears to take precedence over an actually serious ontological search for truth (part of this being a negative side affect of postmodernism, though some good has resulted therefrom).

The Patristics, at least before Augustine, did not seem to focus so much on the notions of election (certainly not from any sort of Calvinist perspective), so I am somewhat wary of labeling it as an essential doctrine.

[RBerman]

The Patristics, at least before Augustine, did not seem to focus so much on the notions of election (certainly not from any sort of Calvinist perspective), so I am somewhat wary of labeling it as an essential doctrine.

Then as now, the squeaky wheel got the grease. They focused on the heresies of the day, which were Trinitarian and Christologic for the most part. The doctrines of Scripture and justification were not hot spots at the time because the errors which prompted their exploration were not so serious at the time. I wouldn't call election an essential doctrine, but I would put JBFA in that category, since Paul seems to.

[Phat8594]

Then as now, the squeaky wheel got the grease. They focused on the heresies of the day, which were Trinitarian and Christologic for the most part. The doctrines of Scripture and justification were not hot spots at the time because the errors which prompted their exploration were not so serious at the time

To be fair, there is a fair amount of writing on their understanding of determinism and free will. Of course, this was not targeted at what we would label today as Calvinism, but rather gnosticism, manichaeism, etc.

One example might be John Chrysostom:

[QUOTE]John 6:44
No man can come unto Me, except the Father which has sent Me draw Him.

The Manichæans spring upon these words, saying, that nothing lies in our own power; yet the expression shows that we are masters of our will. For if a man comes to Him, says some one, what need is there of drawing? But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implies not an unwilling comer, but one enjoying much succor.

I wouldn't call election an essential doctrine, but I would put JBFA in that category, since Paul seems to.

I agree 100%

[Phat8594]

I find that problematic. Unfortunately, it is extremely common for non-Calvinist congregations to avoid any serious discussion pertaining to issues such as divine predestination or election to salvation. Regardless of our interpretation of the biblical data, the doctrines are present, recurring and not obscure throughout NT (not to mention the election of Israel to service in the OT). Therefore, one might assume investigating such matters is not an entirely trivial pursuit

Well, I think it depends in what context the issues are dealt with. Are we to harp on them week in and week out? Or should we just deal with the issues when they arise in the text? I prefer the latter. I would rather the church (or pastor) deal with it when the Bible deals with it...as scripture deals with A LOT more than just soteriology.