Looking for a non-Calvinist Church near Kansas City

[Guest]

Can anyone recommend a good church in Kansas City area (KC, MO;KC, KS; Overland Park, KS, etc.)? I want to leave my Calvinist church and find a good non-Calvinist body.

[_Steve]

I don't know of any specific churches in your part of the country, but the following denominations are not Calvinistic (I am not otherwise recommending any of these, but you can visit around until you find one you like):

Methodist
Wesleyan
Church of the Nazarene
Salvation Army
Mennonite
Foursquare Gospel
Assemblies of God
Church of God (Anderson, Indiana)
Church of God (Cleveland, TN)
Church of Christ
...as well as some independant congregations

The following groups are usually not committed to Calvinism, but may hold some quasi-Calvinistic beliefs (e.g., "once-saved-always-saved):

Baptist
Christian and Missionary Alliance
Evangelical Free Church
Calvary Chapel
...as well as some independant congregations

I hope this gives you some ideas. God bless.

[Guest]

Opie,

I hope you aren't leaving your church simply because of their Calvinist stance. I would personally find it rather disappointing if a brother or sister would limit their fellowship to non Calvinists. Do you think common Calvinism is heresey?

[Guest]

Thanks Steve, for your reply. Jeff, I don't consider Calvinism heretical. My reasons for looking for a non-Calvinist group are, in part:

-Fellowship is difficult when many of the members with whom I meet refer constantly to their Calvinist beliefs as if they were "gospel" and leave little room for an intelligent, dedicated, insightful belief in non-Calvinist ideas.

-It only seems logical to associate with a group who agrees with what the bible seems to teach on such an important aspect of Christian life. I don't know of many people who exclusively and regularly attend congregations whose beliefs are opposite their own when others, equally rightly members of the local church, are nearby.

-I am not a member of this congregation and have only attended for a few months.

Opie[/list]

[_Steve]

With reference to leaving a church simply because it is Calvinistic, I have always felt that I could fellowship without hindrance with believers who disagree with me on such things--so long as they are as open to me as I am to them.

Unfortunately, this is not often the case. Too many churches define themselves by one or another of their theological distinctives, and are threatened by the presence of a person convinced of a contrary view. While the Gospel should not be restricted and defined by such issues as are involved in the Calvinist/Arminian controversy, too often those on one side (and in my experience, it has usually been the Calvinists) are not content to live with the disagreement. They define the Gospel itself by their own opinion about matters such as unconditional election or irresistible grace! It is not enough, in their eyes, for you to be in their fellowship, they often will give you no peace until you can be brought over to their side on these issues.

There is another concern that I have recently observed. Some Christian young people I know recently came under the influence of Calvinist teaching. This led them to doubt their salvation, because they did not have sufficient sense of God's working in their lives. Now, I don't think it's always bad for people to doubt their salvation, if doing so inspires a more determined search to find God (which it should). However, these young people, since they had repented, believed, read their Bibles and lived in obedience to God, but still had never encountered God in as dynamic a relationship as they believed others had, they concluded (on Calvinistic assumptions) that God had not "showed up" for them for the simple reason that they were not among the elect.

Calvinism teaches that God does not love everybody. He only loves the elect. If you were not elected by Him before the foundation of the world, you are lost. Nothing you can do can change God's eternal decrees. If you think you have reason to believe that you are not elect, then you have no reason to believe that God loves you, that Christ died for you, or that you have any hope of salvation, no matter how much you may want it.


Because of their Calvinist indoctrination, I was unable to convince these young people that God actually does love everyone, including them, and they subsequently gave up seeking God in despair. It certainly underscored in my mind how little I would want to expose my children to such dangerous doctrine!

[Guest]

For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus;
that if one died for ALL, then all died; and he died for ALL...
That those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for him
who died for them and rose again. 2 Corth 5:14-15

Personally, I could not attend a church gathering that taught this doctrine.
It leaves little hope and makes God a respector of persons....
John 3:16 tells all.... Everyone is a whosoever.

[Guest]

Thanks Steve, Opie and Moe...Moe, what an edifying verse!
Opie, it makes sense to leave a church early on, like you are, if you aren't comfortable with what they teach. Thanks for clarifying.

One more thought...The following is not specific to your situation Opie, but just a general thought.

I have found that the vast majority of "Calvanists" (a term which seems to be defined differently by different people) are not comfortable asserting the idea that "God does not love everybody." I do however believe it to be true that no one can change something that God decrees, as I hope every Christian does.

Unfortunately, I find the majority of "Calvinists" misrepresenting common "Arminian" doctrine, and the majority of "Arminians" misrepresenting common "Calvinist" doctrine. Maybe it is that most "Calvinists" don't really understand what true "Calvinism" or most "Arminians" don't really understand true "Arminian" doctrine. Or maybe it is because I'm young and haven't encountered many of these extreme "Calvinists" that preach Calvinism more than they preach the gospel. Or maybe we should find out what each individual truly asserts to be true rather than defining them by commonly misunderstood terms.

I've had it in my mind for a long time that Calvinism is an all consuming thing that should be feared, and was warned about teachers such as John Piper. However, since I've allowed myself to be exposed to his teaching, I've never heard him once assert that God doesn't love everyone, and he very rarely asserts any of the five points directly in His teachings... on the contrary I've been really edified and experienced lots of personal growth.

I'm one of those guys that "cops out" on this one. Maybe it's because I haven't delved far enough into my studies, but I think that A LOT of it is symantics. When it gets down to the heart of it, I find most Calvinists and Arminians believing basically the same thing, just stressing different points - maybe even because they have been forced to be defined by one of the labels... I don't know. But I do know I'm not the first to assert these things, and probably everyone reading this has thought the same things. Thanks for your patience. - Maybe this should have been under Calvinism/Arminianism.

Well, enough of my rambeling. I want Calvinists and Arminians in my fellowship. As long as they hold the Word of God as the standard and are willing to yield to the truth therein - which I think many are.

Much Love!

[Guest]

In my experience there are definitely different kinds of calvinists. Some areas of the country contain large pockets of 'extreme' calvinists who think they can 'sin-away' without consequence and that God only loves them. Other areas of the country contain large pockets of moderate calvinists who simply believe in eternal security, they doubt the original salvation of anyone who rarely acts like a Christian.

I grew up in an area with moderate calvinists. My senior pastor and my roomate in college describe their hometowns as containing the extreme kind.

I have been ministered to through the one John Piper book I read. And James R. White's books have been very helpful to me on a few issues. But I wouldn't really choose to be part of an extreme calvinist church

[Guest]

In the words of Charles Simeon (called a Calvinist):

"Of this he [speaking of himself in the third person] is sure, that there is not a decided Calvinist or Arminian in the world who equally approves of the whole of Scripture . . . who, if he had been in the company of St. Paul whilst he was writing his Epistles, would not have recommended him to alter one or other of his expressions. But the author would not wish one of them altered; he finds as much satisfaction in one class of passages as another; and employs the one, he believes, as freely as the other. Where the inspired Writers speak in unqualified terms, he thinks himself at liberty to do the same; judging that they needed no instruction from him how to propagate the truth. He is content to sit as a learner at the feet of the holy Apostles and has no ambition to teach them how they ought to have spoken."

Charles Simeon in meeting John Wesley:

Simeon: "Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?"

Wesley: "Yes, I do indeed."

Simeon: "And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?"

Wesley: "Yes, solely through Christ."

Simeon: "But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?"

Wesley: "No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last."

Simeon: "Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?"

Wesley: "No."

Simeon: "What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?"

Wesley: "Yes, altogether."

Simeon: "And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?"

Wesley: "Yes, I have no hope but in Him."

Simeon: "Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree."



Jeff Lacine : I must also assert that Wesley was not Wesleyan and do not believe, as far as I have studied, that Calvin would define his theology by the 5 points as described by the Arminian.

[_Steve]

Calvinism is not the only string on John Piper's instrument, and he has plenty of edifying things to say on other subjects. I have heard about ten of his sermons from his pulpit (on CD) and each of them was a defense of Calvinism. A friend of mine who has been to conferences at Piper's church (a "missions" conference, I believe) said that an announcer at the beginning stood up and said, "If you are not a Calvinist yet, you will be before you leave." I thought, "What a worthy ambition these people have! They want to take people who believe as the early church believed in the first four centuries, and turn them into people who believe what the early Christians denounced as heresy." Personally, I would prefer to listen to teachers with more worthy agendas than this.

If all today's Calvinists were as congenial as Charles Simeon was in this conversation with Wesley, then I would find them all very easy to live with indeed. Unfortunately, a great percentage of today's Calvinists resonate more with R.C. Sproul and John Piper. Men like this could not simply hear these points of agreement which all Arminians share with Calvinists, and say, "...for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree."

If Simeon would not define his Calvinism as including belief in a limited atonement, for example, the Sproul would label him "an Arminian." Wesley spoke for all Arminians in the answers he gave to Simeon's questions. Only the Pelagians would find themselves at odds with anything that came up in that interview. However, we must not think that both men were understanding the doctrines that they were both affirming in precisely the same way as each other.

We would know more about the differences between the two systems, if Wesley had turned and said, "Let me also ask you about your beliefs. Do you believe that God wants all men )(including those who are eventually lost) to be saved, that Christ died as a ransom for every man, and has done all that is in His power to save every man? Do you believe that a person who truly loves God today, if morally careless, can fall away unto perdition? Do you believe that a man can successfully resist God's drawing unto salvation? Do you believe that faith is a prerequisite for regeneration, rather than the other way around?"

If Simeon could affirm all of these things, then he truly was an Arminian, and might truly find it difficult to find an argument with Wesley or any other Arminian. Commendably, Simeon was apparently not the kind of man who was out looking for an argument with Arminians. In this respect, he was very different from many of the Calvinists today (and in his own day).

The kind of Calvinists that we encounter in churches today will define how peacably we can intermix with them without embracing their special distinctives.