 |
|
| My beliefs are - |
| More Calvinist than Arminian |
0% |
   |
| More Arminian than Calvinist |
14% |
|
| Very Calvinist |
14% |
|
| Very Arminian |
42% |
|
| Not sure |
28% |
|
| Total Votes: 7 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2927 posts |
 Adherence to a Statement of Faith |
Posted Dec 23, 2009; 9:43 pm |
|
I was surprised to find MBs in our church that are of the Calvinist view. One of our statements of faith reads - 'It is the will of God that all people should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved.' However, as I understand Calvinism, God has chosen certain people to be saved and will see to it that they are saved by making His grace irresistible (the 'I' in TULIP).
It seems to me the MB belief is more Arminian than Calvinist and the 'whosoever will' includes everyone who of their free will chose to follow Christ as the Spirit draws them.
So, is the Arminian view an MB view of is it not ? Or is this another grey area that even though a statement of faith reads as our's does, it doesn' t really matter ?
Anyone ? What am I missing here ? I was raised classical Pentecostal and taught the Arminian view and especially opposed to OSAS Calvinism. Currently, I'm a bit of a hybrid and still somewhat confused.  
Last edited by Sudsy on Dec 25, 2009; 9:21 am; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 290 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| Re: MB Calvinists or Arminians |
Posted Dec 24, 2009; 6:03 am |
|
| Sudsy wrote: | I was surprised to find MBs in our church that are of the Calvinist view. One of our statements of faith reads - 'It is the will of God that all people should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved.' However, as I understand Calvinism, God has chosen certain people to be saved and will see to it that they are saved by making His grace irresistible (the 'I' in TULIP).
It seems to me the MB belief is more Arminian than Calvinist and the 'whosoever will' includes everyone who of their free will chose to follow Christ as the Spirit draws them.
So, is the Arminian view an MB view of is it not ? Or is this another grey area that even though a statement of faith reads as our's does, it doesn' t really matter ?
Anyone ? What am I missing here ? I was raised classical Pentecostal and taught the Arminian view and especially opposed to OSAS Calvinism. Currently, I'm a bit of a hybrid and still somewhat confused. |
Maybe I should not be answering this, Sudsy, as I am no longer MB, but if you find yourself unable to fully accept either view, then you are probably right on the money. This is a dispute that came about within Calvinism as a result of their going beyond what is stated in scripture, and constructing a systematic theology which cannot but end in error (ie heresy). Arminius died a Calvinist. It is THEIR dispute, not ours. I believe that both of their views contain a good deal of truth, but their explanations of those truths have passed over into heresy.
As concerning ‘irresistible grace’, I would say (this is me speaking, not scripture – this is my ‘human knowledge-based understanding’) that God’s grace IS irresistible, but He has given us the ability to resist the irresistible. In other words, it is not by our own power that we can refuse the free offer of salvation through the Blessed Savior, but God, in his great grace, desires that we freely come, so he gives us choice - the ability to resist or accept that great love and grace. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2927 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 24, 2009; 8:51 am |
|
| Quote: | | Arminius died a Calvinist. It is THEIR dispute, not ours. |
I have studied this subject also and wondered where you found that 'Arminius died a Calvinist'. Upon his death a group, not wanting to use his name, the 'Remonstrants' created a contrasting 5 points to the Calvinist 5 points. Although Arminius had certain beliefs that were the same as Calvin, what I have read was that he was defending his differing beliefs right up until he got very weak and died. Of course, this debate has gone on for centuries and still continues today in some settings. I found the George Whitefield versus John Wesley letters on this subject the most fascinating.
However, my puzzlement was how an MB statement of faith and MB preaching that I have heard conflicts with certain Calvinist points and yet an MB can be a member of a local church acknowledging acceptance of it's statement of faith and yet retain a Calvinist view. For myself, I have one disagreement in our local church statement of faith and would not become a member unless this was acceptable to not agree on that specific statement regarding baptism.
I don't intend to get back into this original debate and perhaps I look at accepting a statement of faith too rigidly in an MB church, I don't know. It just surprised me to hear a formal member express to be a 4.5 point Calvinist. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Dec 24, 2009; 11:09 am |
|
Neto wrote:
| Quote: | | … if you find yourself unable to fully accept either view, then you are probably right on the money. |
I fully agree with Neto and am glad he posted.
Being raised pretty typically MB, now in my 50’s and thinking back, I don’t remember hearing either term. We were pretty convinced that Christians needed ‘assurance of their salvation’ with an attendant Bible verse to anchor the belief. I remember a question being framed as ‘can a Christian lose their salvation?’ But the various answers (either yes or no) were put forward in more of a ‘bible ping pong’ type way rather than as part of the Arminian/Calvinistic debate
Within the Canadian MB context, given the Calvinistic resurgence coming our way from below the border, I think the debate will be about how much Reformed theology Canadian MB’s need to swallow |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 290 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Dec 24, 2009; 11:39 am |
|
| Sudsy wrote: | | Quote: | | Arminius died a Calvinist. It is THEIR dispute, not ours. |
I have studied this subject also and wondered where you found that 'Arminius died a Calvinist'. Upon his death a group, not wanting to use his name, the 'Remonstrants' created a contrasting 5 points to the Calvinist 5 points. Although Arminius had certain beliefs that were the same as Calvin, what I have read was that he was defending his differing beliefs right up until he got very weak and died. |
What I meant by my statement was exactly what you also stated – that he was not excommunicated until after his death, and I question whether it is possible to excommunicate a dead person. It can certainly not be done Biblically. If I remember correctly, the Calvinists did later say that he was a heretic, but only after his death, as you state. (Correct me if I have my history wrong.) |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 409 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 24, 2009; 11:51 am |
|
Thanks Neto
I like and agree with what you said, "This is a dispute that came about within Calvinism." There is nowhere for an informed MB to respond to the above poll. The "orthodox" MB answer would be "Neither" or "I'm not sure what they are arguing about."
WCFOM- I don't think any MB will ever be required to "swallow" Calvinism or Reformed theology- but remember that Reformed theology is not just entering our MB discussions from south of the border it is also entering via the esteemed Mr NT Wright :) IMO that is a bigger danger to our "orthodoxy." |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Dec 24, 2009; 12:10 pm |
|
Merry Christmas James to you and yours from me and mine.
and that should be the good bishop NT Wright ! at some point i'd like you to explain this last bit more fully. Perhaps it slides through in his more popular writings or interviews. I've missed reading reformed in his big book series with all their big words and concepts which seem more like historical biblical theology - he certainly emphasizes covenant (abrahamic). It would be interesting to hear your associate's RD views on this.
anyway, back to cleaning for Christmas before my Mrs. (whom I lovingly call upper managment) gets off from work. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2927 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 24, 2009; 12:47 pm |
|
| Quote: | | The "orthodox" MB answer would be "Neither" or "I'm not sure what they are arguing about." |
I guess this surprises me as both in my Pentecostal and Baptist experiences this was quite a discussed topic. In the Pentecostal church, I would be afraid to support a Calvinist view and in the Baptist church it was the opposite.
I, too, have a mixed view but lean more toward a view that primarily supports man's choice in how I understand choice.
However, although this thread could easily go elsewhere, and I probably didn't give it a good title, does anyone have a problem with our local statement of faith saying 'It is the will of God that all people should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved' when a Calvinist belief indicates that whosoever is not really whosoever ? This belief is that the will of God is to save some and those He has chosen to save, He will save. Therefore, if a person does not agree that it is God's will to save everyone then isn't it wrong to be a formal member and by this indicate you do believe according to the C of F. I guess I'm not explaining my concern very well.  |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2927 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 25, 2009; 9:19 am |
|
So, anyway, I will attempt to answer my own question. 
Perhaps, instead of looking at a statement of faith as something to be personally believed to the letter, it is the framework of belief that will be used in the teachings of the local church and denomination. So, although differing beliefs and/or different understandings on the wordings in a statement of faith can be held by church members, it is not a statement to accept as my personal belief as written. Therefore, if I have a Calvinist or Arminian or whatever point of view, I can still be a member but one who respects the general statements as written and works within these for the unity of the local church.
It is interesting how man determined that creeds or statements of faith were necessary to develop when we don't have any such thing reflected in the NT in such a form.
Anyway, perhaps someone else has a different understanding on this and would like to correct or improve on my understanding. I think I will change the title of this thread to better reflect my concern which was about the statement of faith and not about Calvinism versus Arminianism. The poll is irrelevant but I can't seem to edit it out. |
|
|
|
| Len Member Joined Nov 7, 2007 255 posts Location: Kelowna, BC |
| ana-what? |
Posted Dec 27, 2009; 5:49 pm |
|
This aging article by anabaptist scholar Delbert Wiens is not only very relevant but raises other important issues that could have been framed in the "missional" conversation..
http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?695 |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Dec 28, 2009; 1:58 pm |
|
Len, thanks for the link to Wiens’ stimulating essay. However, imo it would be helpful if you’d distill the lengthy article into a paragraph or two showing how it can help Sudsy sort out his dilemma. Should Sudsy try to find a concrete community? As I’ve read Sudsy’s posts over past year or two it seems to me he is truly trying to adapt within the realities of his ‘congregational’ context, to grow relationally within it and to be of service beyond it. (I liked the distinction Wiens draws between church and congregation).
Sudsy, it appears you were surprised to discover Calvinists within an MB church whose local statement of faith contains 'It is the will of God that all people should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved.' It may be that only ‘hyper-Calvinists’ would take issue with that statement. See here: Link for an article by a Calvinist apologist.
Regarding the approach to a church’s statement of faith you outline in your last post. I think your approach makes some sense for a ‘lay’ person but less so for a person with a leadership or teaching capacity – especially a person in a full time pastoral staff. I think pastors should fully affirm the statement of faith especially if their personal mortgages are funded by the denomination. 
Sudsy what did you think of this paragraph from the Wiens article?
| Quote: | | Like the ancient Hebrews and the early Christians, our forebears could instinctively understand the significance of the fact that when God determined to grow a people, he began by shaping a new kind of family with Abraham, a new kind of tribes with the twelve patriarchs, and a new kind of ethnos (people) around the covenants which came through Moses and Jesus. Nor did they imagine a docetic Jesus forming an invisible church. For them the body of Christ was composed of communities made up of local clans which were, in turn, integral parts of tribes which spread out into other near and distant communities to form a people of God. |
|
|
|
|
| Len Member Joined Nov 7, 2007 255 posts Location: Kelowna, BC |
| concrete |
Posted Dec 28, 2009; 2:45 pm |
|
WC, thanks for supplying some context.. I didn't see that question above (of whether to find a concrete community)..
But glad the article was helpful :) |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2927 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 28, 2009; 5:25 pm |
|
When it comes to Calvinism and Arminianism I do think there are various degrees held by people and we don't generally know on the surface how much they lean one way or the other. But I do know some personally that say God did not die for the whole world because if He did, the penalty for those He did not chose would be paid twice. Anyway, don't want to get into this but I found it interesting in the variety of responses to the poll (that I couldn't edit out). I did have a sense that most Mennonites were more Arminian in belief than Calvinist but perhaps that is either not true or no longer true.
However, I could just as well have made my point regarding another phrase in our statement of faith which says 'Those who have rejected Jesus as their personal Lord and Saviour will spend eternity in Hell.' I know some on this forum that would not agree with this latter phrase and I was questioning if it would be right to indicate one's acceptance to the statement of faith when it was not totally true. And I agree pastors should agree with the entire statement of faith. In a teaching capacity, I think a person could just agree to not teach otherwise, which I do.
| Quote: | | Sudsy what did you think of this paragraph from the Wiens article? |
Not much because I didn't understand what a 'docetic Jesus' meant. I are not that smart. I will guess it means that they did not consider things to be totally spiritual and therefore invisible when it comes to being a Christ follower and the church.
If that is what it means I believe that we are to be visible, communities of believers, representing another Kingdom and actively involved in bringing others to join this Kingdom. Although some of these communities became quite ethnic, I believe here in Canada they should not remain as such and our doors and invitation should be open to all peoples. This has become a reality in our local MB church but in the other dozen or so Mennonite churches in our area they are still quite ethnic communities.
However, I think I'm wandering again off topic. It was more to do with integrity in becoming a member with agreeing to a statement of faith and how solid this agreement should be. Perhaps some local churches hold it tighter than others.
P.S. For those bored with the lack of activity on this forum, try this one - http://mennodiscuss.com/index.php |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Dec 28, 2009; 6:21 pm |
|
| Quote: | Not much because I didn't understand what a 'docetic Jesus' meant. I are not that smart. I will guess it means that they did not consider things to be totally spiritual and therefore invisible when it comes to being a Christ follower and the church.
If that is what it means I believe that we are to be visible, communities of believers, representing another Kingdom and actively involved in bringing others to join this Kingdom. Although some of these communities became quite ethnic, I believe here in Canada they should not remain as such and our doors and invitation should be open to all peoples. This has become a reality in our local MB church but in the other dozen or so Mennonite churches in our area they are still quite ethnic communities. |
My question came from one of your posts on another thread about your being a member of the invisible Church hence you weren’t going to join the local church due to your differences regarding baptism. I tend to agree with your definition of the visible church - we would probably have to kick around just what Kingdom involvement might be but we've done that before on other threads
On Docetism follow this Wikipedia link Link.
I think ethnic Mennonite churches have outlived their expiry dates. Same as for example the Chinese or Iranian churches will eventually outlive their ‘best before’ dates here in BC. Churches should be open. IMO they only make a bit of sense for 1st generation immigrant groups. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2927 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 29, 2009; 9:34 am |
|
| Quote: | | My question came from one of your posts on another thread about your being a member of the invisible Church hence you weren’t going to join the local church due to your differences regarding baptism. |
I do still have some differences in belief regarding what water baptism represents and have my reservations about signing a covenant (which I don't find in scripture), however, I do strongly believe in being a participant in a local church. We have a number of us that chose not be 'formal members' for various reasons and yet we call this our church home and participate as far as the rules allow. Recently the Pastor and I have had a coffee over this subject and I believe some of the concepts of formal membership is not a closed issue. I think this issue is one where there has been much 'reading into the text' in what the scriptures actually say, IMO. But it certainly has been an important tradition to many groups.
Thanks for the link on Docetism, a belief I had not been exposed to. They say it has Gnostic roots and I have heard it, or something quite similar, in New Age belief. A Course in Miracles refers to an 'illusion' concept.
Regarding ethnic churches - | Quote: | | IMO they only make a bit of sense for 1st generation immigrant groups. |
Yes, I think they are important in that aspect. In our area, the name Mennonite is still considered quite ethnic and not many non-ethnic Mennonites join these churches. I have a friend that married a non-ethnic Mennonite and his wife will not join so they quit going to church altogether. Seems like there is a strong hold to keeping some of these churches as ethnic. I don't see much evangelism being done in these as they withdraw from the non-Mennonite world around them. |
|
|
|
|
|
