Posted on 10/08/2009 11:03:35 AM PDT by topcat54
While not agreeing necessarily with your premise, I do believe that Smith's "denomination" is at this time nothing more than a worldwide church planting effort and that in order to utilize the "Calvary Chapel" umbrella and the "Calvary Chapel" logo, you, as a pastor need to believe in the doctrines and distinctives that the Church has posted and of which you are aware when you become a pastor of a Calvary Chapel Church.
This is not different than a Presbyterian Church requiring that their pastors subscribe to the Westminster Confession and any pastor that expresses disagreement with the Westminster Confession will and should be shown a map to the nearest exit.
Now if you don't agree with the Calvary Distinctives, then don't go to a Calvary Chapel and don't be a pastor of a Calvary Chapel fellowship.
Pretty simple, huh? No burning of heretics or drowning of witches, just a promise to uphold the principles that set Calvary Chapel apart which have been part and parcel to every Calvary Chapel since I started going there in 1971.
If you can't keep that promise, then move on. How hard is that?
There is no way to compare Smith with Jones. I've listened and read Smith on and off over the years. I've always considered him in the lineage of historic Christianity. Then again, I consider Arminius in the line of historic Christianity.
I don't do youtube. Did he say something especially outrageous that bothered you? If so, what was it?
the doctrines and distinctives that the Church has posted
Which would be....available for $8.95 plusshippingandhandling.
Would be nice in this Internet age, if more than the vaguest generalities were on the web.
never mind, just spotted your link
Did you even bother to go to the link? It is posted free online.
That was a link to the entire book. What is it with you guys and your hatred of Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel?
Have you been personally damaged by some teaching of Calvary Chapel?
I have listened to Chuck Smith many years ago, and heard him discuss this subject at length. He gave many sides to the argument, lots of scriptures to defend all sides. It was very informative, very well done, and in the end, he said something quite profound, that both the ideas of pre-destination and free will are in the scriptures, seemingly spoken of both ways by Jesus, Paul, Peter, et al. Which side do you want to choose? If you chose one, he could argue the other and vice versa. It was an excellent commentary on one of the great paradoxes in the scriptures.
Methinks the guy narrating the youtube has to have some kind of pastor envy in all of this.
Forgot to ping you to post 46.
While you make a good point, the Calvary Distinctives are a whole lot different than the Westminster Confession. Anyone who reads the Calvary document should be troubled that Chuck Smith makes no reference to God as a Trinity, or to the Deity of Jesus Christ. You can believe in almost anything so long as you behave in the right way.
Now if you don't agree with the then don't go to a Calvary Chapel and don't be a pastor of a Calvary Chapel fellowship.
Which is why I don't. And if doctrine matters, neither should anyone else.
When an organization as large and powerful as Calvary Chapel is utterly devoid of checks and balances or doctrinal, financial, and moral accountability, the results will not be surprising: abuse, power-struggles, and the oft-unspoken fear of raising even the smallest objection to the whims of the powers that be.
-- Jason Spellman
You know what it’s about. It’s about eschatology. They’ve got Smith in their sights because of some eschatological speculation, clearly id’d as speculation, that he did many, many years ago.
They are “Jesus has already returned sort of”, JW 2-step Preterists, and they don’t like Smith or Lindsey or any dispie premillennialist.
They have found that doctrinalization is easier than evangelization, so they change Christian’s doctrine and think they’ve expanded the kingdom.
Me too... Found this once and thought it represented my position quite well: I don't want to be labeled Calvinist or Arminian. Rather, I want to be biblical through and through and give every text its due proportion, no matter where it falls.
Alex, that is a less than thoughtful approach to the word “distinctives.”
A list of distinctives are those things that a church has that are not necessarily part of the historice church. In the page itself, it mentions Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It says, “Certainly there are churches that share many of our beliefs and practices. We’re not renegades. But God has done a wonderful work of balance in the Calvary Chapel movement that does make us different in many areas.”
Agreed, Scripter. Good to hear from you.
Either way, why are you so angry about it?
You know what it’s about. It’s about eschatology. They’ve got Smith in their sights because of some eschatological speculation, clearly id’d as speculation, that he did many, many years ago.
Who does? James White? No. Unless this clip was grossly different somehow from what I heard, White wasn't concerned with Chuck Smith's eschatology at all.
Others have noted Chuck Smith's sometime propensity to shoot from the hip with regard to dates. That's something he shares with a lot of people.
They are “Jesus has already returned sort of”, JW 2-step Preterists,
Please. Get it right.
Personally I'm not that concerned w/ Calvary Chapel. There's not one around here. I'll just make note that if we're driven to wandering again CC is probably not a good place for me to land.
Appears that way. This kind of "cult of personality" can result from this type of laissez-faire church structuring. And why a Presbyterian form of church government of checks and balances seems optimal -- where the church property is owned by the Presbytery and the pastor is accountable to the Presbytery whose responsibility it is to protect doctrine and enforce church order.
The Presbytery is then accountable to the General Assembly made up of elected Commissioners.
Members of the local congregations elect local elders. Elders elect from themselves delegates to the Presbytery. Delegates elect from themselves Commissioners to the General Assembly.
This church governance works to insure a time-delay of any "innovation" of doctrine; prevents any dominating personalities or egocentricity among its elders and pastors; and strives to keep all churches harmonized according to the Gospel.
IMO the Baptist model of complete independence was a by-product of the counter-reformation. What better way to splinter your opposition than to take away its authority, divide its members and encourage them to "do their own thing."
It's always been a puzzle to me how reformed Baptists can be some of the strongest, most righteous voices against the errors of the papacy, yet not see how they have played into its goal of dismantling the Reformation by diluting its ability to confront Rome's arrogance en masse.
Obviously Mr. Spellman is wrong about a lack of doctrinal accountability as he was removed from his position as a Calvary Pastor because of a disagreement with the church on a matter of doctrine.
Mr. Spellman's issue was one of a doctrinal disagreement with Calvary Chapel. I suppose his remedy was to expect Calvary Chapel to accept his doctrinal deviation and continue to be a preacher in good standing or that Calvary Chapel should adopt his view of soteriology rather than that of the Church itself.
abuse, power-struggles, and the oft-unspoken fear of raising even the smallest objection to the whims of the powers that be.
Gee, that sounds like every Church in America that has more than a half dozen members.
Can you provide a link to the written Calvary Chapel doctrinal statement that Spellman formally agreed to as part of receiving his pastorate, which he was later found to be in violation of?
That organization has led the PCUSA where?
Such "distinctives" are insufficient to either a) build a denomination (as Chuck is attempting), or b) exercise the keys regarding church discipleship/discipline. They are nothing more than a folksy account of the Chuck Smith story from a doctrinal perspective.
They are so broad that basiclly give Chuck the ability to countenance any type of error or chastize anyone who disagrees with his personal teaching.
If folks wish to operate under that structure, have at it. But it's obvious that it leaves Chuck wide open to legitimate criticism.
You miss the point. Insofar as Smith is accountable to no one, he is no different than Jones. The heart is evil, and even good men placed in positions of unlimited power are subject to temptation and fall and abuse and tyranny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.