George Bryson weighs in on the succession question. What do you think? Will CC go on just fine without Chuck Smith or will it implode? How can an organization which is centered itself one man succeed without that man at the helm? All affiliation in CC is with CCCM only because Chuck Smith heads CCCM. Put Brian Broderson OR ANYONE at the helm of CCCM and see how quickly local churches will disaffiliate themselves.
Denominations smominations
What about George's argument against denominations? Is the marking characteristic of a denomination that there are "national or regional governing boards"? Do pastors like George have the slightest clue about how denominational structures work? There are plenty of autonomous denominations out there which do not have regional boards. The Superintendent system used in such denominations as the Evangelical Free church and the Evangelical Covenant Church creates regional leadership that is only binding over the local pastor and not his flock. The local pastor is the member, as it were, of two congregations, one local and one national. His "boss" is the Superintendent, but the Superintendent has no real power. There are plenty of ways that this cat has been skinned short of one guy at the very top, like CC with CS at the head of CCCM and at the head of the entire CC movement.
How about regional pastors?
Is there a difference between "regional pastors" or "archbishops"?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Roasting Finney
The Phoenix Preacher has taken to roasting Charles Finney. Now, I'm no great fan of Finney, but most of the shots the PP has been taking have been quite off the mark.
The #1 claim, that Finney was Pelagian and therefore a heretic, in particular, is not accurate. Quoting Wikipedia:
The PP is roasting Finney based on secondary sources and his own peculiar Calvinistic bias. The PP quotes Reformed writer Michael Horton at length but is short on actual Finney source materials. It would be interesting to read Finney himself, wouldn't it?
Finney on the Atonement
The PP has enshrined the Catholic Anselmian theory of the atonement as Gospel fact. This is typical of a particular breed of the more narrow-minded Calvinists. This satisfaction view of the atonement is not the only possible view. In fact, the view itself replaced an earlier view. What does this mean for the people who held to the earlier ransom theory of the atonement? Were they all heretics too since they did not hold the Anselmian view?
How Clean was Calvin on the Atonement?
Before pronouncing Finney to be a heretic, it might do well for the PP to examine the views of his own hero in the faith, John Calvin. Calvin's solution to the atonement question was that Christ's death on the cross paid not a general penalty for humanity's sins, but a specific penalty for the sins of individual people.
For Calvin, Christ did not die for the sins of the world, he only died for the elect. Any Bible reading Christian should be able to quickly come up with at least a dozen Bible passages which this flies in the face of among them John 3:16 which must be read in a very peculiar sense of one is a Calvinist. You see, Jesus did not come to save the world, but only the elect, they would tell us. So everyplace we see world we need to substitute the word elect in it's place.
Fans of Finney
When someone says that they are a fan of Finney, what exactly do they mean? I take it to mean that they are a fan of affective preaching, which is preaching which causes changes of heart towards God. In particular, a sort of preaching which brings people to repent and change. It probably does not mean that they agree with Finney on all subjects. This is a distinction that the PP seems unable to concede.
The #1 claim, that Finney was Pelagian and therefore a heretic, in particular, is not accurate. Quoting Wikipedia:
While some theologians have attempted to associate Finney with Pelagian thought, it is important to note that Finney strongly affirmed salvation by faith, not by works or by obedience.Secondary Sources and Calvinistic Biases?
The PP is roasting Finney based on secondary sources and his own peculiar Calvinistic bias. The PP quotes Reformed writer Michael Horton at length but is short on actual Finney source materials. It would be interesting to read Finney himself, wouldn't it?
Finney on the Atonement
The PP has enshrined the Catholic Anselmian theory of the atonement as Gospel fact. This is typical of a particular breed of the more narrow-minded Calvinists. This satisfaction view of the atonement is not the only possible view. In fact, the view itself replaced an earlier view. What does this mean for the people who held to the earlier ransom theory of the atonement? Were they all heretics too since they did not hold the Anselmian view?
How Clean was Calvin on the Atonement?
Before pronouncing Finney to be a heretic, it might do well for the PP to examine the views of his own hero in the faith, John Calvin. Calvin's solution to the atonement question was that Christ's death on the cross paid not a general penalty for humanity's sins, but a specific penalty for the sins of individual people.
For Calvin, Christ did not die for the sins of the world, he only died for the elect. Any Bible reading Christian should be able to quickly come up with at least a dozen Bible passages which this flies in the face of among them John 3:16 which must be read in a very peculiar sense of one is a Calvinist. You see, Jesus did not come to save the world, but only the elect, they would tell us. So everyplace we see world we need to substitute the word elect in it's place.
Fans of Finney
When someone says that they are a fan of Finney, what exactly do they mean? I take it to mean that they are a fan of affective preaching, which is preaching which causes changes of heart towards God. In particular, a sort of preaching which brings people to repent and change. It probably does not mean that they agree with Finney on all subjects. This is a distinction that the PP seems unable to concede.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Movements
Is Calvary Chapel a Movement?
As part of the denial that CC is a denomination, CCites often claim that they are not a denomination, but rather a movement. But is CC a movement in any sense of the word?
Think of other movements, such as the charismatic movement. What made them a movement rather than a church or denomination was that they crossed denominational barriers. You can find Charismatic Catholics, Charismatic Baptists and even entire denominations which are Charismatic/Pentecostal.
Similarly, Calvary Chapel is part of a larger movement, often called "the Jesus Movement" which occurred starting in the mid to late 1960s. The movement was an Christian form of acommodation to the hippie movement of the day. Calvary Chapel is not the entire movement but is one part which survives.
Face it, the VW buses in the CCCM parking lot have long ago been replaced by BMWs.
From what I can see, it's simply not accurate to call CC a movement.
As part of the denial that CC is a denomination, CCites often claim that they are not a denomination, but rather a movement. But is CC a movement in any sense of the word?
Think of other movements, such as the charismatic movement. What made them a movement rather than a church or denomination was that they crossed denominational barriers. You can find Charismatic Catholics, Charismatic Baptists and even entire denominations which are Charismatic/Pentecostal.
Similarly, Calvary Chapel is part of a larger movement, often called "the Jesus Movement" which occurred starting in the mid to late 1960s. The movement was an Christian form of acommodation to the hippie movement of the day. Calvary Chapel is not the entire movement but is one part which survives.
Face it, the VW buses in the CCCM parking lot have long ago been replaced by BMWs.
From what I can see, it's simply not accurate to call CC a movement.
Pleasing God
Does Calvinism deal with the idea of "pleasing God" in a consistent manner?
Calvinism say that we cannot please God.
Calvinism also says that we try to please God, and that is what they see as the error of Arminianism.
But what does the Bible say about pleasing God?
Calvinism say that we cannot please God.
Calvinism also says that we try to please God, and that is what they see as the error of Arminianism.
But what does the Bible say about pleasing God?
1 Thes 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.Once again the Bible and Calvinism stand at polar opposites. Calvinism tells us that the very desire to please God is Arminian and we can't do it, so why try? OK. So be it. Paul, the author of 1 Thes, must have been an Arminian, too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
