I Still Embrace Non-Calvinist Christians
I can't call myself a die-hard Calvinist just yet or a Calvinist but reading verses that mention the words "election", "my people" and "chosen" really start to shake up my years of having a non-Calvinist approach. Yet there are some people who still continue in the path of non-Calvinism. But should it matter? I thought about a couple of times when a non-Calvinist can embrace a Calvinist.
One of my favorite Baptist preachers Dr. David W. Cloud had said these lines:
In conclusion, I thank the Lord that there are many IFB churches that aren’t cults. Independent Fundamental Baptist isn’t a denomination; it simply identifies certain major characteristics of a type of church. It means that the church is Baptist in doctrine and polity, fundamental in its stance on separation, and independent of denominational structures such as American Baptist or Southern Baptist.
Beyond that, IFB churches come in a wide variety of stripes, and when I find one of like mind and join it, I am not joining all IFB churches!
I can be independent fundamental Baptist and fellowship with likeminded independent fundamental Baptist churches without being unified with the IFB churches with which I disagree. I am at liberty to speak against any IFB church or preacher that is in error.
This is in contrast with the Southern Baptist Convention, for example, which has to maintain denominational unity. For example, four Southern Baptist leaders recently said that Calvinism should not divide the SBC. David Dockery, president of Union University, said, “I think we can come to a place where we can all work together” (Baptist Press, Aug. 6, 2012).
Independent Baptists don’t have to make such compromises. Since there is no denominational structure to preserve and and no cooperative program to support and since we are not yoked together in any organizational sense, we can speak out on any issue and call heresy heresy and let the chips fall where they may. In this context, I can accept a Calvinist as a brother in Christ, assuming he shows evidence of knowing Christ personally, and I can appreciate him in many ways, but I don’t have to minister together with him and I don’t have to keep my mouth shut about what I am convinced is serious error.
I personally know many IFB pastors who are humble, godly men who wouldn’t dream of taking the place of Christ in the lives of their people, who invite the people to test their lives and teaching by God’s Word, who do not lord it over the people but exercise the office of shepherd according to 1 Peter 5. I know of many IFB churches where the members wouldn’t dream of giving a mere man “unquestioning loyalty.” I personally know many IFB churches that despise Quick Prayerism and hold high standards for the pastorate.
I know Spurgeon.org has put it in its list of bad theology but I do check out his site every now and then. I'm still struggling with going from non-Calvinist to Calvinist view all the while I still want to maintain King James Version Onlyism (without going to the level of nutjobs like Steven Anderson). I think about how I still think not adhering to KJV Only is serious error while some of my Calvinist and non-Calvinist brothers may think otherwise.
I read through Dr. John F. MacArthur's books and I noticed he's also endorsed a couple of non-Calvinist preachers. He has endorsed Dr. Vernon McGee who had a wrong understanding of lordship salvation (all the while blasting Antinomianism) and rejected Calvinism. He has endorsed Aiden W. Tozer who had a negative view of Calvinism. Yet, I don't see much of a reason why I should argue too much about Calvinism since non-Calvinists and Calvinists can be focused on missions.
The great preacher Charles H. Spurgeon has been admired by many true Christians regardless they are Calvinist or not. I still think of how a pastor can say, "I admire Spurgeon even if he was a Calvinist and I'm not." In my case, I could say, "I admire David W. Cloud's attacking sin even when me and him disagree on Calvinism." The KJV or Authorized Version of 1611 was translated by Puritans. Did you know that the Puritans themselves were Calvinists? This puts that foolish self-proclaimed Baptist at danger in his claim that Calvinists are Jesuits. If that's true then the KJV is a Jesuit Bible. Thank God that it isn't. Just the idea that the Puritans were Calvinists makes me think I might become a Calvinist, KJV Only myself.
The truth is it's Christ before John Calvin. Calvin isn't perfect and he's made some doctrinal error himself. He may have opposed his former schoolmate at the University of Paris namely Ignatius of Loyola by Christian doctrine but he was just a man. Did you know that Calvin actually taught that Mary remained a virgin and didn't have other children with Joseph? I couldn't agree with that as biblical doctrine. He taught that the brothers were merely relatives of Jesus and not Jesus' earthly half-brothers who were the sons of Mary and Joseph. I've read Calvin's four volume Institutes of the Christian Religion but it's not the Word of God. It can help understand the Bible but as said, it's Christ before Calvin and not Calvin before Christ.
See also: