# Sovereign Grace Ministries



## Scott1

Sovereign Grace churches describe themselves on their web site as follows:
http://www.sovereigngrace.com/About/AboutUs.aspx 



> "Sovereign Grace Ministries is a family of churches passionate about the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are devoted to planting and supporting local churches, with a strong doctrinal basis that is evangelical, Reformed, and continuationist."



This thread is intended to be informational. I would like to hear from people from within and without this denomination and prefer to avoid the "continuationist" aspect here only so we focus on answering the question:

*Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice*, particularly in relation to:


1) The doctrines of Grace
2) Covenant theology
3) Church government


----------



## toddpedlar

Tony Reinke, of The Shepherd's Scrapbook blog, is a prominent member of that group...


----------



## danmpem

I think with some of the recent threads about the difference between being Reformed and being a Calvinist, we can say that Sovereign Grace churches are not Reformed due to the differences in sacriments and/or ordinances (I'm not sure what they call them) and ecclesiology.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/what-does-mean-calvinist-34454/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f121/whats-difference-between-being-reformed-being-calvinist-34219/

Personally, I have benefited greatly from the preaching of many Sovereign Grace pastors (i.e. Mahaney) and resources like The Shepherd's Scrapbook.


----------



## Scott1

Their web site under "Statement of Beliefs" links to a "Together 4 the Gospel" site and its "Affirmations and Denials," which looks to be an 18 Article Statement.

Signatories to this 18 Article Statement include Mr Ligon Duncan, Mr Mark Dever, and Mr Al Mohler. 

http://www.t4g.org/pdf/affirmations-denials.pdf


----------



## Pilgrim

Scott, I hope you don't mind my changing the thread title to "Sovereign Grace Ministries." Since about the 1960's there are a number of independent Calvinistic baptistic churches that are part of a "sovereign grace" movement that is distinguished from Reformed Baptists by their relative lack of emphasis on the LBCF and other confessions. They are known mainly (from what I can ascertain) for having several Bible and/or pastors conferences, some of which have been going on for decades. This is what I thought of with the title "sovereign grace" churches since I attended one for a few years.


----------



## JonathanHunt

I'd slightly differ with Josh

1. Definately yes
2. No
3. No


----------



## Neogillist

Here is the answer from the horse's mouth:
Sovereign Grace - FAQ
"3. How are you different from other churches that identify themselves as Reformed? 
A helpful way to summarize our Reformed convictions is that we hold to a Reformed soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). We believe that God is sovereign over all things, including the salvation of individual sinners, and that all things, including salvation, have as their ultimate goal the glory of God. Such a perspective keeps the gospel central and grace amazing.

We do believe and cherish the doctrines that historically have been called the TULIP (Total depravity; Unconditional election; Limited atonement or, perhaps more accurately phrased, particular redemption; Irresistible grace or, more accurately phrased, effectual calling; and Perseverance of the saints). However, we never want to focus on more narrow aspects of Reformed theology to the neglect of truths that are central, and that we share with many other Christians. These truths include the gospel, sola fide (justification by faith alone), and sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as the sole infallible source of doctrine and authority). 

While we believe that Reformed theology faithfully represents the teaching of Scripture, our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical. We have no other boast but the cross of Christ. 

*Beyond this agreement on the general tenets of Reformed theology, there are a few aspects of doctrine and practice that are common to many Reformed traditions but to which we do not hold. These include infant baptism, cessationism (the belief that some miraculous spiritual gifts have ceased), and some traditionally Reformed types of church government.*"

I would probably add myself that their worship is not reformed either (like psalm-singing and hymn-singing), and is probably quite lively. Also, they do not appear to be sabbath-keepers. Overall I would describe them as Calvinistic Pentecostals, or mainstream evangelicals that happen to be calvinists.


----------



## Reformingstudent

While we believe that Reformed theology faithfully represents the teaching of Scripture, our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical. We have no other boast but the cross of Christ.








Where exactly do they think we get our theology from, the Koran?


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Reformingstudent said:


> While we believe that Reformed theology faithfully represents the teaching of Scripture, *our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical*. We have no other boast but the cross of Christ.



Amen. 

If you'd include the anglican church as 'reformed', their church government structure is somewhat similar.

CJ would be archbishop of canterbury.
The founders of SGM are kinda archbishops as well.
pastors/elders of churches are below them.

Multiple Eldership in their churches, with one head elder.

Not much different than some RB churches I've seen.

On the sacraments, they call them sacraments, but they hold to a memorialist view. Josh Harris recently finally took Covenant Life through a series on this. At times, they sound like they want to become sacramental, but then go back to memorialist language - kinda trying to be 'in the middle'.


----------



## Leslie

Reformingstudent said:


> While we believe that Reformed theology faithfully represents the teaching of Scripture, our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical. We have no other boast but the cross of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where exactly do they think we get our theology from, the Koran?



Perhaps what they are saying is to always go back to the scriptures, that quoting the confessions is not equivalent to quoting the scriptures. While the confessions themselves claim to be subservient to scriptures, in practice they, at times supplant scripture, being considered infallible.


----------



## Scott1

> Sacraments of the Church
> 
> 
> Water baptism is intended only for the individual who has received the saving benefits of Christ’s atoning work and become his disciple. Therefore, in obedience to Christ’s command and as a testimony to God, the Church, oneself, and the world, a believer should be immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Water baptism is a visual demonstration of a person’s union with Christ in the likeness of his death and resurrection. It signifies that his former way of life has been put to death, and vividly depicts a person’s release from the mastery of sin.
> 
> As with water baptism, the Lord’s Supper is to be observed only by those who have become genuine followers of Christ. This ordinance symbolizes the breaking of Christ’s body and the shedding of his blood on our behalf, and is to be observed repeatedly throughout the Christian life as a sign of continued participation in the atoning benefits of Christ’s death. As we partake of the Lord’s Supper with an attitude of faith and self-examination, we remember and proclaim the death of Christ, receive spiritual nourishment for our souls, and signify our unity with other members of Christ’s body.



From their Statement of Faith page, it appears they do not infant baptize. It appears they specify immersion- not sure from this if the method is a point of doctrine.

I have a friend who is going to one of these churches and he told me they had "convinced the Session" that their son's infant baptism (in a PCA Church) is sufficient and that his son would not need to be re-baptized.

There also does not appear to be the idea that Christ is spiritually present during the Lord's Supper. Maybe they have a "higher view," of the Lord's Supper stated somewhere or practiced.

It would be helpful to hear from someone who has been part of the denomination on their doctrine and practice with regard to the Sacraments- and whether those views are written down or is there variation in practice.


----------



## Davidius

http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/sovereign-grace-ministries-17333/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/sovereign-grace-ministries-13207/


----------



## jogri17

Reformed yes, calvinist yes

There is not one set of rules that define reformed. There are broad principals. A church may be congregationalist (like Edwards or sovereign grace) or plurality of elders (like many reformed baptist churches and presbyterian) and have a historic claim in the title Reformed. I would argue that orthodox Lutherans also would have that honor. One can be a lutheran, Reformed, and Calvinist. Reformed baptists and Presbyterians and Lutherans don't agree on the sacraments/ordinances. Now over the decades certain posistions have been more focused than others leading to the idea that these are the defining deffinitions. But I do not believe the Reformes would limit the title to those who accept one out of 10 or so confessions.


----------



## Scott1

It looks like the earlier threads concentrate on whether they are "4 point Calvinist" (seems to indicate they are moving more and more toward defining themselves "all the way" 5 points) and the "continuationist" issue.

Still not much about their official view of the Sacraments doctrine or practice.


----------



## raekwon

For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.


----------



## turmeric

raekwon said:


> For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.


 
Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.

I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless? It's like the "rededication" some SBC and Independent churches push, and the teaching has similar effects on troubled consciences. I realize this is off-topic and only mention it here. If there's a desire for further discussion, we can maybe start another thread and leave this one for its original purpose.


----------



## timmopussycat

Leslie said:


> Reformingstudent said:
> 
> 
> 
> While we believe that Reformed theology faithfully represents the teaching of Scripture, our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical. We have no other boast but the cross of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where exactly do they think we get our theology from, the Koran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps what they are saying is to always go back to the scriptures, that quoting the confessions is not equivalent to quoting the scriptures. While the confessions themselves claim to be subservient to scriptures, in practice they, at times supplant scripture, being considered infallible.
Click to expand...


It looks like that to me too.


----------



## Scott1

> Originally Posted by Leslie
> Perhaps what they are saying is to always go back to the scriptures, that quoting the confessions is not equivalent to quoting the scriptures. While the confessions themselves claim to be subservient to scriptures, in practice they, at times supplant scripture, being considered infallible.



How true- "semper reformanda," is a very reformed concept.

It is also very reformed that while there is "Unity in essentials, liberty in nonessentials, and charity in all things," in reformed theology, the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

I have found it helpful that when someone asserts that Reformed theology tends to elevate confessions of faith above Scripture to ask for a specific example. Ask them to give an example where a Confession summarizes a doctrine that is not in Scripture or is not clear from Scripture. It's often a good entree into discussion, that God can use to help both parties.

As this relates to Sovereign Grace ministries, I am wondering what is the source of their doctrinal agreement in their denominational polity.


----------



## FenderPriest

Scott1 said:


> *Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice*, particularly in relation to:
> 
> 
> 1) The doctrines of Grace
> 2) Covenant theology
> 3) Church government



Hey Scott, hopefully I can help answer some of your questions. In relation to your direct questions, the answers are: 1) Yes. 2) Yes, depending on who you talk to, you may get varying degrees of affirmation. 3) There's a plurality of elders, church discipline, church to church accountability. If you search the SGM website, there's a booklet published on our polity, which you can download, or buy for something around $5 - and judge there on whether we're in line with #3 or not since I'm unsure the extent to which your question would go.

As for SGM itself, I love being in the church we're in (Covenant Fellowship in Glen Mills, PA). The pastoral leadership here is phenomenally Gospel centered, and very intent on bringing our lives into conformity with the Bible (in our jobs, marriages, parenting, friendships, knowledge of God, etc.). The pastors care for us deeply here, and are constantly seeking to encourage faith in us, and help us run the race. There are, of course, our faults where we need growth. But the church itself is the most healthy church I've ever been a part of. All the members are constantly encouraged to grow in their knowledge of God and their application of the Gospel - through the preaching on Sunday, through our community groups, through reading solid books. My wife and I moved to PA from Alabama to be a part of this church, and it has definitely seen God's grace in our lives through it. Through the pastoral leadership and Gospel community, God is continually working in our everyday lives to conform us to the image of Christ - I love the Savior more and more through the work of God in our church and family of churches.

Anyhow, I could go on, but I imagine I'll bag beyond my welcome here. But I figured that since you wanted thoughts from someone in a SGM church that I should share.

~Jacob


----------



## Pilgrim

raekwon said:


> For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.



From my admittedly cursory perusal of the site, I suspect they would be critical of the emphasis here on the PB and in many Reformed churches of being in submission to the elders. Membership covenants are also a staple of many Baptist churches.


----------



## Leslie

turmeric said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.
> 
> I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless? It's like the "rededication" some SBC and Independent churches push, and the teaching has similar effects on troubled consciences. I realize this is off-topic and only mention it here. If there's a desire for further discussion, we can maybe start another thread and leave this one for its original purpose.
Click to expand...


What is wrong with the rededication or second experience or whatever? Is it not true that "Reformed" means "Always reforming"? What's the difference if one does it by a few quantum leaps or more often? I truly don't understand the problem.


----------



## FenderPriest

Leslie said:


> What is wrong with the rededication or second experience or whatever? Is it not true that "Reformed" means "Always reforming"? What's the difference if one does it by a few quantum leaps or more often? I truly don't understand the problem.



Leslie,

The problem with some Pentecostal teaching on "second blessing" is that it makes a two stage Christianity. This is obviously contrary to Paul's teaching in his Epistles. I think what you are speaking to here is those markers of particular awareness of the Spirit's work in our lives that are a part of every Christian's sanctification. There are indeed those moments when we are freshly awakened, freshly renewed, or suddenly aware to a dimension of sin and grace that we weren't before - that's the Spirit's work in our lives. But the problem that the "second blessing" theology presents is that there are two stages of Christians, those who've "merely" been converted, and those who've been empowered. This results in the problems people like Charles Finney and Phoebe Palmer have caused in the church in America. 

I hope this helps.
~Jacob


----------



## KMK

turmeric said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.
> 
> I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless?
Click to expand...


As a point of clarification, charismatics do not necessarily demand a 'second experience/blessing'. Pentacostals do require a 'second blessing', but not all charismatics are Pentacostals.

I do not know for sure, but I assume SGM is charismatic of the '3rd Wave' variety which do not require a 'second blessing'. Please correct me if I am wrong....


----------



## raekwon

I should add that my posting of the above link isn't for the purpose of bashing SGM. I have good friends who are members and pastors in Sovereign Grace churches (FenderPriest being one of them), I've benefited greatly from the preaching and writing of guys like CJ Mahaney and Joshua Harris, and when we moved to Ohio, SGM was one of the first groups I looked at for finding a church home.

I just wanted to show that there seem to be some consistently unhealthy tendencies in _some_ SGM churches.


----------



## Pilgrim

KMK said:


> turmeric said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.
> 
> I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a point of clarification, charismatics do not necessarily demand a 'second experience/blessing'. Pentacostals do require a 'second blessing', but not all charismatics are Pentacostals.
> 
> I do not know for sure, but I assume SGM is charismatic of the '3rd Wave' variety which do not require a 'second blessing'. Please correct me if I am wrong....
Click to expand...


If I'm not mistaken originally their statement of faith did teach a subsequent Baptism of the Holy Spirit but it was revised in order to accommodate those who had joined or who wanted to join and couldn't subscribe to that teaching.


----------



## Jared

turmeric said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.
> 
> I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless? It's like the "rededication" some SBC and Independent churches push, and the teaching has similar effects on troubled consciences. I realize this is off-topic and only mention it here. If there's a desire for further discussion, we can maybe start another thread and leave this one for its original purpose.
Click to expand...


They have recently changed their official statement regarding pneumatology to welcome those who are Third Wave. People who are Third Wave believe that spiritual gifts are still operating in the church today, but that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is received at salvation and we can be filled and empowered more and more with the Spirit subsequent to salvation. This is my position as well.

http://www.SovereignGraceMinistries.org/Reference/holy_spirit.pdf


----------



## Jared

Scott1 said:


> Sovereign Grace churches describe themselves on their web site as follows:
> Sovereign Grace - Our Mission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Sovereign Grace Ministries is a family of churches passionate about the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are devoted to planting and supporting local churches, with a strong doctrinal basis that is evangelical, Reformed, and continuationist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is intended to be informational. I would like to hear from people from within and without this denomination and prefer to avoid the "continuationist" aspect here only so we focus on answering the question:
> 
> *Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice*, particularly in relation to:
> 
> 
> 1) The doctrines of Grace
> 2) Covenant theology
> 3) Church government
Click to expand...


I have been to a Sovereign Grace church a few times. I went to one close to where I live. It's called Cornerstone Church of Knoxville and it is in Knoxville, TN. I have not been to a "truly reformed" church, so I could not compare it to that. But I do know that I always leave feeling like some of the other sermons that I have heard are almost refuse compared to the preaching there. Also, their worship is very cross-centered. I happen to like it since I was raised Pentecostal. It's a good mix for me because I don't want to leave behind what I believe to be the work of the HOly Spirit in the church, and I also want to have a church that is biblical in their doctrine. 

Unfortunately, their church is too far from where I live to attend every Sunday.


----------



## Scott1

> The Context of the Modification
> Let it first be said that the Sovereign Grace Ministries leadership
> team has not moved from its understanding of the work of the
> Spirit, an understanding that could be classified as a traditional
> charismatic/Pentecostal view.1
> 
> 1. The addition of “charismatic” to this label implies some distinction from
> a traditional Pentecostal view. The primary distinction would be the lack
> of insistence that the gift of tongues is the necessary evidence that a person
> has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, an insistence that characterizes
> the doctrinal statements of many Pentecostal denominations. The general
> perspective of the Sovereign Grace leadership team is represented by
> the essay by Douglas Oss in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, ed.
> Wayne Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 239-283.



Okay- it looks like we have identified one major issue here in answering our question in this thread- Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice...

The Sovereign Grace Ministries doctrinal standard holds that the Holy Spirit at conversion and the Holy Spirit at the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" are two different experiences. It appears, from the standard, however, this belief is not considered an "essential" for the denomination.

In Reformed theology it would probably be an essential to hold that the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit comes at salvation.

Without commenting on this underlying issue, it seems to me it would be difficult to hold unity over a point such as this, remembering that *in Reformed theology, the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.* This would go to the first point in understanding the denomination we're focusing on:

1) Doctrines of grace
2) Covenant theology
3) Church government


----------



## KMK

Scott1 said:


> The Context of the Modification
> Let it first be said that the Sovereign Grace Ministries leadership
> team has not moved from its understanding of the work of the
> Spirit, an understanding that could be classified as a traditional
> charismatic/Pentecostal view.1
> 
> 1. The addition of “charismatic” to this label implies some distinction from
> a traditional Pentecostal view. The primary distinction would be the lack
> of insistence that the gift of tongues is the necessary evidence that a person
> has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, an insistence that characterizes
> the doctrinal statements of many Pentecostal denominations. The general
> perspective of the Sovereign Grace leadership team is represented by
> the essay by Douglas Oss in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, ed.
> Wayne Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 239-283.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay- it looks like we have identified one major issue here.
> 
> The Sovereign Grace Ministries doctrinal standard holds that the Holy Spirit at conversion and the Holy Spirit at the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" are two different experiences. It appears, from the standard, however, this belief is not considered an "essential" for the denomination.
> 
> In Reformed theology it would probably be an essential to hold that the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit comes at salvation.
> 
> Without commenting on this underlying issue, it seems to me it would be difficult to hold unity over a point such as this, remembering that *in Reformed theology, the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.* This would go to the first point in understanding the denomination we're focusing on:
> 
> 1) Doctrines of grace
> 2) Covenant theology
> 3) Church government
Click to expand...


From this: 

http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/Reference/holy_spirit.pdf

which you quoted, it seems apparent that the leadership team of SGM is definitely Pentacostal. (because Oss certainly is and his contribution to "Are Miraculous Gifts For Today" is for the Pentacostal view) But they do not insist on a second blessing that is evidenced in tongues speaking. They do not insist on this in order to make room for the '3rd Wavers'. 

If this is true, then it seems that they are definitely Calvinistic Pentacostals but they are willing to tolerate Calvinistic '3rd Wavers'. This being the case, I don't see how anyone could call them 'Reformed'.


----------



## Pilgrim

turmeric said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.
> 
> I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless? It's like the "rededication" some SBC and Independent churches push, and the teaching has similar effects on troubled consciences. I realize this is off-topic and only mention it here. If there's a desire for further discussion, we can maybe start another thread and leave this one for its original purpose.
Click to expand...


I only looked at the first page and saw no specifics, only innuendo and little or no argumentation from scripture. Do you have anything specific you saw that you can point me to? Where I'm coming from is that today many people view any kind of attempt at pastoral care at all as intrusive, abusive and even cultic. This even includes rudimentary steps like the pastor or elder contacting a family that has been absent from church for several weeks. In the past few years I've come across some sites alleging abuse at Reformed Baptist churches as well and I'm sure there are probably some about Presbyterians too.


----------



## Jared

Surprisingly, there are a number of "reformed" charismatics who believe in a second blessing. Martyn Loyd-Jones and John Piper are two examples. 

This actually seems to be the most common position. 

Some of the Puritans were called "reformed sealers" because they believed in a second blessing, but were still cessationists. Based on what I have heard, Martyn Loyd-Jones was the first reformed person to be a continuationist and hold to a second blessing. 

The following lecture from SBTS might be helpful to some of you who would like to learn more about continuationists who are also Calvinists.

It is titled "Pentecostalism and Its Impact On Evangelicals"

http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/BoyceSociety/Brand09_17_03.mp3

I listened to it a few months ago and found some of the issues discussed to be interesting although I had heard some of the historical information because my church history professor was Pentecostal.


----------



## Jared

Those of us who are Third Wave feel somewhat out of place at times. But it's okay. We're strong. We'll get through it.


----------



## turmeric

Actually, Piper does *not* believe in a "second blessing" such as I referenced unless he's changed his stance since his sermons on Romans. For his take on it, his sermons on Rom. 7 & 8 are revealing.. He does believe in continuationism.


----------



## KMK

Jared104 said:


> Surprisingly, there are a number of "reformed" charismatics who believe in a second blessing. Martyn Loyd-Jones and John Piper are two examples.
> 
> *This actually seems to be the most common position. *
> Some of the Puritans were called "reformed sealers" because they believed in a second blessing, but were still cessationists. Based on what I have heard, Martyn Loyd-Jones was the first reformed person to be a continuationist and hold to a second blessing.



Could you clarify what you mean by the above?


----------



## Scott1

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Jared104
> Surprisingly, there are a number of "reformed" charismatics who believe in a second blessing. Martyn Loyd-Jones and John Piper are two examples.
> 
> This actually seems to be the most common position.
> Some of the Puritans were called "reformed sealers" because they believed in a second blessing, but were still cessationists. Based on what I have heard, Martyn Loyd-Jones was the first reformed person to be a continuationist and hold to a second blessing.
> 
> Could you clarify what you mean by the above?
> __________________



After you answer this, kindly let's leave the trajectory of these questions so we go back to the informational focus on the original question:


Is Sovereign Grace Ministries reformed in its doctrine and practice, especially with regard to:

1) Doctrines of Grace
2) Covenatnt theology
3) Church government

We still have much to discern here.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

The 5th entry at SGMEx is the one I ran across 2 years ago or so:
Here’s The Comment | Sovereign Grace Ministries Survivors (AKA SGUncensored)

That history of SGM is pretty much correct. I have a couple at my church who only left CLC around 2002 or so and were there for about 15-17 years (met there, dated, married, etc....). 

I do think that SGM attracts and is good for one particular TYPE of people. If you're not comfortable opening up to people and having multiple people be an *intimate* part of your life or have serious issues with guilt over sin, then being driven back to the cross (and they are very cross-centered) constantly may actually encourage depression in you, not praise. an old friend of mine who attended SGM had that very issue happen. Her complaint with her care group was that the 'fellowship' seemed to be more 'manufactured' than genuine. They only met frequently (weekly) because they were told to....and if you didn't play along, you got reported, phone calls from your pastor and/or CG leader, etc..... now I *know* (because I have many friends in SGM churches) that this is not always the case, but it does exist. 

An issue which may or may not have been 'solved' since those days is that CovLife was not holding regular weekly, focused Bible studies (and it wasn't happening in my friends' care group either). 

Overall, things may have changed. 

I do think it's a bit questionable as to why all SGM's official historical presentations of SGM usually don't mention Larry Tomczak. Covering your history to make it look rosy is usually a bit questionable to me.

On the positive side: As CJ's theology has grown more biblical, SGM has moved more in that direction. Thankfully, they've also become less 'insular' (where they produce everything themselves) and have opened up to the larger evangelical community and encouraged more fellowship and cooperation with folks, denoms and churches outside of SGM. Dever has been a good influence on CJ, as have others like MacArthur (and MacArthur actually let CJ preach one Sunday morning from his pulpit....which says a LOT). 

Give SGM more time to 'keep reforming'. While they're probably NOT going to ever look like 1646/86/1747, they sure won't look like 1903 Azuza St. or 1995 TAV. Josh Harris only recently ran them through a series on baptism and the Lord's supper (memorialist view, but a little higher.... but they call them sacraments...). Some very good pastors and churches have actually left where they were to join SGM because their emphasis is much more biblical than anything else they were originally a part of.

In addition, I usually have no issues with recommending 'newly reformed' charismatic folks over to an SGM church - even if its' just transitional (since they'll eventually get into reading more reformed material as a result). At the very least, they'll be in a supportive, doctrinally solid church atmosphere that's growing more and more solid by the year. SGM today doesn't even look like it did in 06'.


----------



## KMK

Scott1 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Jared104
> Surprisingly, there are a number of "reformed" charismatics who believe in a second blessing. Martyn Loyd-Jones and John Piper are two examples.
> 
> This actually seems to be the most common position.
> Some of the Puritans were called "reformed sealers" because they believed in a second blessing, but were still cessationists. Based on what I have heard, Martyn Loyd-Jones was the first reformed person to be a continuationist and hold to a second blessing.
> 
> Could you clarify what you mean by the above?
> __________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After you answer this, kindly let's leave the trajectory of these questions so we go back to the informational focus on the original question:
> 
> 
> Is Sovereign Grace Ministries reformed in its doctrine and practice, especially with regard to:
> 
> 1) Doctrines of Grace
> 2) Covenatnt theology
> 3) Church government
> 
> We still have much to discern here.
Click to expand...


Sorry, did not meet to take this off topic. 

Before the question could be fully answered, I think you are going to have to define what 'Reformed' church government is.


----------



## KMK

BlackCalvinist said:


> The 5th entry at SGMEx is the one I ran across 2 years ago or so:
> Here’s The Comment | Sovereign Grace Ministries Survivors (AKA SGUncensored)
> 
> That history of SGM is pretty much correct. I have a couple at my church who only left CLC around 2002 or so and were there for about 15-17 years (met there, dated, married, etc....).
> 
> I do think that SGM attracts and is good for one particular TYPE of people. If you're not comfortable opening up to people and having multiple people be an *intimate* part of your life or have serious issues with guilt over sin, then being driven back to the cross (and they are very cross-centered) constantly may actually encourage depression in you, not praise. an old friend of mine who attended SGM had that very issue happen. Her complaint with her care group was that the 'fellowship' seemed to be more 'manufactured' than genuine. They only met frequently (weekly) because they were told to....and if you didn't play along, you got reported, phone calls from your pastor and/or CG leader, etc..... now I *know* (because I have many friends in SGM churches) that this is not always the case, but it does exist.
> 
> An issue which may or may not have been 'solved' since those days is that CovLife was not holding regular weekly, focused Bible studies (and it wasn't happening in my friends' care group either).
> 
> Overall, things may have changed.
> 
> I do think it's a bit questionable as to why all SGM's official historical presentations of SGM usually don't mention Larry Tomczak. Covering your history to make it look rosy is usually a bit questionable to me.
> 
> On the positive side: As CJ's theology has grown more biblical, SGM has moved more in that direction. Thankfully, they've also become less 'insular' (where they produce everything themselves) and have opened up to the larger evangelical community and encouraged more fellowship and cooperation with folks, denoms and churches outside of SGM. Dever has been a good influence on CJ, as have others like MacArthur (and MacArthur actually let CJ preach one Sunday morning from his pulpit....which says a LOT).
> 
> Give SGM more time to 'keep reforming'. While they're probably NOT going to ever look like 1646/86/1747, they sure won't look like 1903 Azuza St. or 1995 TAV. Josh Harris only recently ran them through a series on baptism and the Lord's supper (memorialist view, but a little higher.... but they call them sacraments...). Some very good pastors and churches have actually left where they were to join SGM because their emphasis is much more biblical than anything else they were originally a part of.
> 
> In addition, I usually have no issues with recommending 'newly reformed' charismatic folks over to an SGM church - even if its' just transitional (since they'll eventually get into reading more reformed material as a result). At the very least, they'll be in a supportive, doctrinally solid church atmosphere that's growing more and more solid by the year. SGM today doesn't even look like it did in 06'.



What are the similarities/contrasts between SGM and Vineyard, for example?


----------



## BlackCalvinist

1) Doctrines of Grace - Yes.

2) Covenant theology - That's what's coming out of the pastors' college to my knowledge. Jeff Purswell (CovLife church, head of the pastors' college) did edit Grudem's "Bible Doctrine" and he graduated from TEDS Suma Cum Laude.

3) Church government - Their church polity brochure is on their site for free download.
Polity: Serving and Leading the Local Church BOOK DOWNLOAD

Plurality of Elders, Senior Pastor and what they call 'apostolic partnerships' (which is basically the group of men that leads SGM - they are the pastors of the pastors - hence, they function in a way Paul did....).

Pretty simple.

So maybe 2 out of 3.


----------



## Scott1

BlackCalvinist said:


> 1) Doctrines of Grace - Yes.
> 
> 2) Covenant theology - That's what's coming out of the pastors' college to my knowledge. Jeff Purswell (CovLife church, head of the pastors' college) did edit Grudem's "Bible Doctrine" and he graduated from TEDS Suma Cum Laude.
> 
> 3) Church government - Their church polity brochure is on their site for free download.
> Polity: Serving and Leading the Local Church BOOK DOWNLOAD
> 
> Plurality of Elders, Senior Pastor and what they call 'apostolic partnerships' (which is basically the group of men that leads SGM - they are the pastors of the pastors - hence, they function in a way Paul did....).
> 
> Pretty simple.
> 
> 
> So maybe 2 out of 3.




Very helpful in helping understand their church government. We know there are variations in Reformed church government but it is helpful to know what this denomination looks to for its polity. For example, are they looking toward the Reformation for their polity? (ref post# 38)


----------



## Jared

KMK said:


> Jared104 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprisingly, there are a number of "reformed" charismatics who believe in a second blessing. Martyn Loyd-Jones and John Piper are two examples.
> 
> *This actually seems to be the most common position. *
> Some of the Puritans were called "reformed sealers" because they believed in a second blessing, but were still cessationists. Based on what I have heard, Martyn Loyd-Jones was the first reformed person to be a continuationist and hold to a second blessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you clarify what you mean by the above?
Click to expand...


Well, it seems to me that quite a few of the modern "reformed" Charismatics are just that, they are quite technically Charismatic. Which means that they believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is received after salvation but is not necessarily accompanied by the gift of tongues, but may be accompanied by any spiritual gift.


----------



## Jared

KMK said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 5th entry at SGMEx is the one I ran across 2 years ago or so:
> Here’s The Comment | Sovereign Grace Ministries Survivors (AKA SGUncensored)
> 
> That history of SGM is pretty much correct. I have a couple at my church who only left CLC around 2002 or so and were there for about 15-17 years (met there, dated, married, etc....).
> 
> I do think that SGM attracts and is good for one particular TYPE of people. If you're not comfortable opening up to people and having multiple people be an *intimate* part of your life or have serious issues with guilt over sin, then being driven back to the cross (and they are very cross-centered) constantly may actually encourage depression in you, not praise. an old friend of mine who attended SGM had that very issue happen. Her complaint with her care group was that the 'fellowship' seemed to be more 'manufactured' than genuine. They only met frequently (weekly) because they were told to....and if you didn't play along, you got reported, phone calls from your pastor and/or CG leader, etc..... now I *know* (because I have many friends in SGM churches) that this is not always the case, but it does exist.
> 
> An issue which may or may not have been 'solved' since those days is that CovLife was not holding regular weekly, focused Bible studies (and it wasn't happening in my friends' care group either).
> 
> Overall, things may have changed.
> 
> I do think it's a bit questionable as to why all SGM's official historical presentations of SGM usually don't mention Larry Tomczak. Covering your history to make it look rosy is usually a bit questionable to me.
> 
> On the positive side: As CJ's theology has grown more biblical, SGM has moved more in that direction. Thankfully, they've also become less 'insular' (where they produce everything themselves) and have opened up to the larger evangelical community and encouraged more fellowship and cooperation with folks, denoms and churches outside of SGM. Dever has been a good influence on CJ, as have others like MacArthur (and MacArthur actually let CJ preach one Sunday morning from his pulpit....which says a LOT).
> 
> Give SGM more time to 'keep reforming'. While they're probably NOT going to ever look like 1646/86/1747, they sure won't look like 1903 Azuza St. or 1995 TAV. Josh Harris only recently ran them through a series on baptism and the Lord's supper (memorialist view, but a little higher.... but they call them sacraments...). Some very good pastors and churches have actually left where they were to join SGM because their emphasis is much more biblical than anything else they were originally a part of.
> 
> In addition, I usually have no issues with recommending 'newly reformed' charismatic folks over to an SGM church - even if its' just transitional (since they'll eventually get into reading more reformed material as a result). At the very least, they'll be in a supportive, doctrinally solid church atmosphere that's growing more and more solid by the year. SGM today doesn't even look like it did in 06'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the similarities/contrasts between SGM and Vineyard, for example?
Click to expand...


I have not been to a SG care group, so I don't know first hand whether they practice this sort of thing first had, but I have been to a couple of Vineyard churches. John Wimber as you may know was the main leader of the Vineyard until his death in 1997. He had a background with the Friends church in Yorba Linda. The experiences that he had as a Quaker are seen through the Vineyard emphasis of 'waiting on the Spirit'. After they have waited for a while, someone will speak up and say what they feel that God is telling them. 

The Vineyard also seems to be a little bit more open to Toronto-style manifestations of the Spirit, but usually a little more low-key than that. This is partly because the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship was formerly the Toronto Airport Vineyard. 

Basically, a lot of people were asking questions about some of the manifestations, so Wimber asked them to leave. 

As I mentioned on another thread, according to J. I. Packer, John Wimber was "reformed". (He used the word reformed, but I think he meant that Wimber was a monergist.) 

As far as the music goes, it is similar. The song "Let Your Kingdom Come" by SGM sounds like it could be a Vineyard song. Not only does it have the sound of Vineyard worship, but it also has the emphasis on the kingdom that was so important in John Wimber's ministry. 

So, basically I think the main difference is that the Vineyard is more open to spiritual manifestations such as falling in the floor, shaking, laughing, etc.


----------



## Jared

I should also add that not everyone who is with the Vineyard is a monergist. In fact, it seems like it is more common for Vineyard pastors to be more broadly evangelical and not "reformed" in any sense. 

To my knowledge, pretty much everyone who is part of SGM holds to the TULIP. (no doubt there are some amyraldians, but you know what I mean.)


----------



## Brother John

*Fender is Greg Harris part of SGM ?*


----------



## raekwon

Blev3rd said:


> fenderpriest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *is this a reformed denomination in doctrine and practice*, particularly in relation to:
> 
> 
> 1) the doctrines of grace
> 2) covenant theology
> 3) church government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey scott, hopefully i can help answer some of your questions. In relation to your direct questions, the answers are: 1) yes. 2) yes, depending on who you talk to, you may get varying degrees of affirmation. 3) there's a plurality of elders, church discipline, church to church accountability. If you search the sgm website, there's a booklet published on our polity, which you can download, or buy for something around $5 - and judge there on whether we're in line with #3 or not since i'm unsure the extent to which your question would go.
> 
> As a small passing comment regarding the link that rea posted, (sgm survivors (aka sg uncensored). I'm not going to discourage folks from reading it. However, the site itself seems to be a small number of people, who, in my opinion, have a strong distaste for pastoral leadership, and a reformed understanding of the pastor's authority in a church body. There are also many who are seem to be hyper-charismatic and arminian. I also find it discouraging to the usefulness of the site that there are many bitter, and abrasive thoughts on there which would relate more antagonism than a desire for constructive growth in sgm. However, some of their claims may be true, but seem to be based more on an older time in sovereign grace, and not the characterization of how it is now. On the whole, i'd say very little of their accusations are true and the ones that are are so outdated that they don't know what sgm even looks like any more.
> 
> Anyhow, as for sgm itself, i love being in the church we're in (covenant fellowship in glen mills, pa). The pastoral leadership here is phenomenally gospel centered, and very intent on bringing our lives into conformity with the bible (in our jobs, marriages, parenting, friendships, knowledge of god, etc.). The pastors care for us deeply here, and are constantly seeking to encourage faith in us, and help us run the race. There are, of course, our faults where we need growth. But the church itself is the most healthy church i've ever been a part of. All the members are constantly encouraged to grow in their knowledge of god and their application of the gospel - through the preaching on sunday, through our community groups, through reading solid books. My wife and i moved to pa from alabama to be a part of this church, and it has definitely seen god's grace in our lives through it. Through the pastoral leadership and gospel community, god is continually working in our everyday lives to conform us to the image of Christ - i love the savior more and more through the work of god in our church and family of churches.
> 
> Anyhow, i could go on, but i imagine i'll bag beyond my welcome here. But i figured that since you wanted thoughts from someone in a sgm church that i should share.
> 
> ~jacob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Fender is Greg Harris part of SGM ?*
Click to expand...


I'm fairly certain that Greg Harris' church is not affiliated w/ SGM, but the church that his son Josh pastors is (in fact, it could be considered SGM's "flagship").


----------



## Scott1

> BlackCalvinist
> Puritanboard Junior
> Give SGM more time to 'keep reforming'. While they're probably NOT going to ever look like 1646/86/1747, they sure won't look like 1903 Azuza St. or 1995 TAV. Josh Harris only recently ran them through a series on baptism and the Lord's supper (memorialist view, but a little higher.... but they call them sacraments...). Some very good pastors and churches have actually left where they were to join SGM because their emphasis is much more biblical than anything else they were originally a part of.



Regarding this trend toward a more comprehensive reformed theology in Sovereign Grace Ministries-

1) Is it likely that they will soon move toward a confessional basis of unity?

2) If so, any ideas of what that might be or might look like?

It would be good to hear thoughts on this from the outside as well as people in Sovereign Grace Ministries now, if they would care to comment.


----------



## Herald

Brethren, my mother called me last week and asked me about a Vineyard church in Teterboro, New Jersey (10 miles west of Manhattan). I told her to run, not walk. I want her to find a reformed church in the Nutley, NJ area. A business associate of hers recommended the Vineyard church that she attends. Not only did I let my mother know about this cult but I also told her to dismiss anything this business associate tells her about spiritual matters.


----------



## KMK

Jared104 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jared104 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprisingly, there are a number of "reformed" charismatics who believe in a second blessing. Martyn Loyd-Jones and John Piper are two examples.
> 
> *This actually seems to be the most common position. *
> Some of the Puritans were called "reformed sealers" because they believed in a second blessing, but were still cessationists. Based on what I have heard, Martyn Loyd-Jones was the first reformed person to be a continuationist and hold to a second blessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you clarify what you mean by the above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it seems to me that quite a few of the modern "reformed" Charismatics are just that, they are quite technically Charismatic. Which means that they believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is received *after* salvation but is not necessarily accompanied by the gift of tongues, but may be accompanied by any spiritual gift.
Click to expand...


Hmmm... According to Sam Storms in his contribution to "Are Miraculous Gifts For Today", 'Third Wavers' (like Vineyard) do not necessarily insist that the 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' is subsequent to regeneration.


----------



## KMK

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Brethren, my mother called me last week and asked me about a Vineyard church in Teterboro, New Jersey (10 miles west of Manhattan). I told her to run, not walk. I want her to find a reformed church in the Nutley, NJ area. A business associate of hers recommended the Vineyard church that she attends. Not only did I let my mother know about this cult but I also told her to dismiss anything this business associate tells her about spiritual matters.



Are you classifying all Vineyard churches as 'cults' or just the one in Teterboro?


----------



## Herald

KMK, the one in Teterboro. They are into some weird stuff according to my mom: speaking with angels, channeling etc. I told her to flee.


----------



## Scott1

The Vineyard may need to have its own thread- but it is not the topic here.

We are aiming for good information on Sovereign Grace Ministries here to help assess it, both from within and without.

Thanks for your cooperation.


----------



## Jared

KMK said:


> Jared104 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you clarify what you mean by the above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it seems to me that quite a few of the modern "reformed" Charismatics are just that, they are quite technically Charismatic. Which means that they believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is received *after* salvation but is not necessarily accompanied by the gift of tongues, but may be accompanied by any spiritual gift.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm... According to Sam Storms in his contribution to "Are Miraculous Gifts For Today", 'Third Wavers' (like Vineyard) do not necessarily insist that the 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' is subsequent to regeneration.
Click to expand...


Yes. And that is my position personally. But it does not seem to be the most common position in the "reformed charismatic" movement.


----------



## FenderPriest

Hey Guys,

Sorry to not have replied sooner – I don’t have internet at home. There are a few places where I’d like to clarify, if I can, on a few issues.

1) SGM is in the process of moving away from Pentecostal and Charismatic language towards continuationist language. We’re moving towards continuationist language because it describes the particular doctrinal issue at hand: the continued activity of the Holy Spirit with certain gifts. While we may have excited worship (i.e. electric guitars, turn tables *gasp!*, etc.), this is easily found in none “charismatic” churches, and is not really the issue at hand. Since the question is about the activity of the Spirit, and our position on it, we’re moving towards more particular language to help in this area of discussion. 

2) As far as the “Third Wave” stuff goes, I think it would be fare to say that a good half of SGM pastors are divided on the issue. For example, I had a long conversation with one of the main pastors from my church this past Saturday where we discussed this issue. He himself defined himself as a “modified Third Wave guy” – and was saying how even on our pastoral team, about 15 guys, about half sit on either side of the issue. What’s important, I think, for SGM is that theologically, not chronologically, we are making a distinction between conversion and empowering for the Christian life by the Holy Spirit. That is that there is a theological difference to say that someone was regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and that someone was empowered by the Holy Spirit for the Christian life in whatever capacity. 

3) It’s important, also, to note that in order to be ordained as a SGM pastor, one must be a Calvinist. There’s no question about this. I don’t believe there are any 4-Pointers presently serving as pastors. I’m especially convinced of this since Jeff Purswell is strongly suggesting The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by Owen as good reading in the recent interview he did with CJ on books. I don’t know if you’ve ever read it, but lets just say that it’s not ambiguous on where Owen sits on the issue, or where the Bible does for that matter. (It’s personally one of my favorite books I’ve ever read.)

4) It also should be noted that SGM is increasingly decentralizing around Covenant Life. As the movement of churches is growing, the focus on Covenant Life is lessening. For example, we started a Pastor’s College this past year in Mexico for those men presented for pastoral training in Central and South America. We’ve also got a close relationship with Wolfgang Wegert in Hamburg, Germany who’s another one of those strange Reformed Charismatic guys who over sees hundreds of like minded pastors in Germany – basically the CJ for Germany. If there’s not ever adopted, they’ve at least got a major role in SGM. We’ve also just had a man who just graduated from the Pastors College this year who’s from Burma. From my understanding, he has several pastors and churches under his care in Burma, and his intention is to start a Pastors College there at some point. So, needless to say, as time goes on, and SGM becomes more international in its character, the focus on Covenant Life that once existed is slowly fading I think. That’s not to say that it will ever be completely gone, but its lessening.

Anyhow, I hope this helps some.


----------



## KMK

FenderPriest said:


> 2) As far as the “Third Wave” stuff goes, I think it would be fare to say that a good half of SGM pastors are divided on the issue. For example, I had a long conversation with one of the main pastors from my church this past Saturday where we discussed this issue. He himself defined himself as a “modified Third Wave guy” – and was saying how even on our pastoral team, about 15 guys, *about half sit on either side of the issue*. What’s important, I think, for SGM is that theologically, not chronologically, we are making a distinction between conversion and empowering for the Christian life by the Holy Spirit. That is that there is a theological difference to say that someone was regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and that someone was empowered by the Holy Spirit for the Christian life in whatever capacity.



What are the two sides represented by SGM? Pentacostal and Third Wave?


----------



## Scott1

Thanks much, Jacob.

Based on the Sovereign Grace Ministries Statement of Beliefs on its web site and the "Affirmations and Denials" (18 Articles) http://www.t4g.org/pdf/affirmations-denials.pdf, is it your understanding the official doctrinal position is:



> The Sovereign Grace Ministries doctrinal standard holds that the Holy Spirit at conversion and the Holy Spirit at the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" are two different experiences. It appears, from the standard, however, this belief is not considered an "essential" for the denomination.



Or, is it that they are always two different experiences but that the Baptisim of the Holy Spirit is not always accompanied by certain spiritual gifts?

Also, not as a proposition for debate here, but would you recognize this as a statement of what "Reformed" means? (Again, not debating the underlying issue only if you accept this would be standard "Reformed" doctrine).



> In Reformed theology it would probably be an essential to hold that the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit comes at salvation.


----------



## FenderPriest

Scott1 said:


> Thanks much, Jacob.
> 
> Based on the Sovereign Grace Ministries Statement of Beliefs on its web site and the "Affirmations and Denials" (18 Articles) http://www.t4g.org/pdf/affirmations-denials.pdf, is it your understanding the official doctrinal position is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sovereign Grace Ministries doctrinal standard holds that the Holy Spirit at conversion and the Holy Spirit at the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" are two different experiences. It appears, from the standard, however, this belief is not considered an "essential" for the denomination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, is it that they are always two different experiences but that the Baptisim of the Holy Spirit is not always accompanied by certain spiritual gifts?
Click to expand...


Hey Scott. As I said above, SGM holds that there is a theological distinction between regeneration and empowering by the Holy Spirit - the debate is whether there is a chronological distinction. (KMK - this, hopefully, will answer your question). Where someone falls on this issue, so long as they are a cessationist, is not essential to SGM doctrine, but an issue to work through nonetheless. As my pastor was saying on Saturday morning, there isn't a lot of clarity in Scripture on this, so we're not going to press it beyond the clarity. 

As to whether there are two difference experiences, my understanding from my pastors is as follows: The Christian is converted by the Holy Spirit, and as a part of their Christian lives they are to continually seek to be "filled with the Holy Spirit". This filling does meet the individual believer in ways that encouraged them, empowers them, and helps them to enjoy God. It may be accompanied with gifts - what those gifts are is left open. For us, of course, this may be the gift of tongues, or a prophetic word, or it could be a renewed vision of God's glory, a deeper desire for holiness, a gift for evangelism. Since Paul speaks of us receiving the "grace-gifts", the literal of "spiritual gifts" in 1 Cor. 12:1, I believe we leave it open as to how the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is accompanied, since, as we see it, Paul speaks of many things being "spiritual gifts/grace-gifts".

I'm not sure this helps, I feel like I'm not quite getting at your question. Bear with me if I'm not, I am myself just starting to get a good grip on our stance on these things.



Scott1 said:


> Also, not as a proposition for debate here, but would you recognize this as a statement of what "Reformed" means? (Again, not debating the underlying issue only if you accept this would be standard "Reformed" doctrine).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Reformed theology it would probably be an essential to hold that the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit comes at salvation.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, since we are making a theological distinction between regeneration and empowering. We are holding, of course, that regeneration is a monergistic act of God by his grace alone. I am not sure the Reformers dealt with the issue of regeneration v. empowering, so I'm not sure if we're able to say what the Reformed position is on this issue. Maybe they did, and I'm ignorant of it. If such is the case, my apologies. I will add that for SGM, to say that we are "essentially Reformed" means that when we look at the Westminster Confession, we're going to agree with all but 2 or 3 points.

Anyhow, I hope this helps in some way!
~Jacob


----------



## Scott1

> FenderPriest
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> I'm not sure this helps, I feel like I'm not quite getting at your question. Bear with me if I'm not, I am myself just starting to get a good grip on our stance on these things.



That helps a lot. 

I think you can see how many of us in the Presbyterian and Reformed part of Christ's Church see the benefit and blessing of having a confession that clearly articulates points like these. One of the hallmarks of Reformed Theology historically, which often has appeal to some sort of confession is...



> The unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.



That doesn't mean every single thing is agreed- Confessions aren't intended to cover every point of doctrine and may carefully acknowledge Scripture is not clear enough to affirm a point. (cf Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter X 3. regarding salvation of infants dying in infancy). But, they can go a long way toward resolving significant issues such as the nature of the Holy Spirit's work at salvation.

From your comments, it sounds like the leadership of Sovereign Grace Ministries, at least right now, is trending more-and-more toward Reformed doctrines.


----------



## FenderPriest

Scott1 said:


> From your comments, it sounds like the leadership of Sovereign Grace Ministries, at least right now, is trending more-and-more toward Reformed doctrines.



I think it's also important to recognize that SGM is a very young group of churches. We've been around, in one form or another, for about 30 years, and have only been in the Reformed camp for about 20 years or so as a group. So there's still a lot for us to work through.


----------



## shackleton

Scott1 said:


> *Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice*, particularly in relation to:
> 
> 
> 1) The doctrines of Grace
> 2) Covenant theology
> 3) Church government



I talked with a pastor of a local Sovereign Grace Ministries church when looking for a church and got some info, 

1) Calvinistic. Along the lines of Piper or MacArthur. They get a lot of their theology from the Grudem. Share Grudem's philosophy of spiritual gifts and continuation of prophecy. 
2) Amil. believers baptism. 
3) Elders

When asked he stated, they were "Charismatic Calvinists." He stated that their emphasis was not on reformed theology, they were charismatic first, reformed second. 

They might not all fit into the last statement, that may just be that one pastor.


----------



## KMK

FenderPriest said:


> Hey Scott. As I said above, SGM holds that there is a theological distinction between regeneration and empowering by the Holy Spirit - the debate is whether there is a chronological distinction. (KMK - this, hopefully, will answer your question). Where someone falls on this issue, *so long as they are a cessationist*, is not essential to SGM doctrine, but an issue to work through nonetheless. As my pastor was saying on Saturday morning, there isn't a lot of clarity in Scripture on this, so we're not going to press it beyond the clarity.



Do you mean, "So long as they are *not* a cessationist...?"

Another question: Does SGM encourage people to seek out and pray for supernatural gifts?


----------



## danmpem

Leslie said:


> Perhaps what they are saying is to always go back to the scriptures, that quoting the confessions is not equivalent to quoting the scriptures. While the confessions themselves claim to be subservient to scriptures, in practice they, at times supplant scripture, being considered infallible.





Some of my friends have no problem with Calvinism; but, when they hear me quote the WCF, St. Augustine, or something of the like, they start to get a little nervous break into a monologue on the sufficiency of scripture.


----------



## KMK

shackleton said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice*, particularly in relation to:
> 
> 
> 1) The doctrines of Grace
> 2) Covenant theology
> 3) Church government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I talked with a pastor of a local Sovereign Grace Ministries church when looking for a church and got some info,
> 
> 1) Calvinistic. Along the lines of Piper or MacArthur. *They get a lot of their theology from the Grudem*. Share Grudem's philosophy of spiritual gifts and continuation of prophecy.
> 2) Amil. believers baptism.
> 3) Elders
> 
> When asked he stated, they were "Charismatic Calvinists." He stated that their emphasis was not on reformed theology, they were charismatic first, reformed second.
> 
> They might not all fit into the last statement, that may just be that one pastor.
Click to expand...


This is why I am confused, and I am not trying to take this thread off topic. SGM grounds a lot of their theology on Grudem, but Grudem is Vineyard, if I am not mistaken. I guess my question is, what seperates SGM from Vineyard?


----------



## danmpem

shackleton said:


> When asked he stated, they were "Charismatic Calvinists." He stated that their emphasis was not on reformed theology, they were charismatic first, reformed second.



I wonder if he was mainly speaking of his local body or SGM in general?


----------



## panta dokimazete

KMK said:


> This is why I am confused, and I am not trying to take this thread off topic. SGM grounds a lot of their theology on Grudem, but Grudem is Vineyard, if I am not mistaken. I guess my question is, what seperates SGM from Vineyard?



*Is* Grudem still Vineyard?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

panta dokimazete said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I am confused, and I am not trying to take this thread off topic. SGM grounds a lot of their theology on Grudem, but Grudem is Vineyard, if I am not mistaken. I guess my question is, what seperates SGM from Vineyard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is* Grudem still Vineyard?
Click to expand...


Yes, as far as I know Grudem is still Vineyard, as is Sam Storms, another Five Point Calvinist.

As to the earlier question above, I would assume that while SGM is committed to Calvinist soteriology, Vineyard (per se) is not. As far as I can see, that may be all that distinguishes them.


----------



## FenderPriest

KMK said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Scott. As I said above, SGM holds that there is a theological distinction between regeneration and empowering by the Holy Spirit - the debate is whether there is a chronological distinction. (KMK - this, hopefully, will answer your question). Where someone falls on this issue, *so long as they are a cessationist*, is not essential to SGM doctrine, but an issue to work through nonetheless. As my pastor was saying on Saturday morning, there isn't a lot of clarity in Scripture on this, so we're not going to press it beyond the clarity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean, "So long as they are *not* a cessationist...?"
> 
> Another question: Does SGM encourage people to seek out and pray for supernatural gifts?
Click to expand...


Yes, sorry about that typo! Thanks for the correction.

To your question: Yes. We take seriously Paul's command to "earnestly desire the spiritual gifts" (1 Cor. 14:1). 



KMK said:


> This is why I am confused, and I am not trying to take this thread off topic. SGM grounds a lot of their theology on Grudem, but Grudem is Vineyard, if I am not mistaken. I guess my question is, what seperates SGM from Vineyard?



SGM is much more clearly defined as being Calvinistic in their soteriology, Reformed in their historical references and line of thinking than the Vineyard is. In order to be a SGM pastor, you _must_ affirm SGM statement of faith, which is more defined than Vineyard. From my discussions with those in Vineyard, SGM is more defined and confessional in their church order, doctrine, etc. than Vineyard is.


----------



## Scott1

From Sovereign Grace Ministries "Statement of Faith":



> Sacraments of the Church
> 
> Water baptism is intended only for the individual who has received the saving benefits of Christ’s atoning work and become his disciple. Therefore, in obedience to Christ’s command and as a testimony to God, the Church, oneself, and the world, a believer should be immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Water baptism is a visual demonstration of a person’s union with Christ in the likeness of his death and resurrection. It signifies that his former way of life has been put to death, and vividly depicts a person’s release from the mastery of sin.
> 
> As with water baptism, the Lord’s Supper is to be observed only by those who have become genuine followers of Christ. This ordinance symbolizes the breaking of Christ’s body and the shedding of his blood on our behalf, and is to be observed repeatedly throughout the Christian life as a sign of continued participation in the atoning benefits of Christ’s death. As we partake of the Lord’s Supper with an attitude of faith and self-examination, we remember and proclaim the death of Christ, receive spiritual nourishment for our souls, and signify our unity with other members of Christ’s body.




FenderPriest 
Puritanboard Freshman 



> you must affirm SGM statement of faith,




A couple questions:

Any idea of the status of the "Statement of Faith"? 

For example, 
1) do officers of the denomination take a vow that they agree with every part of it? 
2) Is there a mechanism for taking exception to it? 
3) Is there a process for enforcing it? 

The baptism portion clearly details believer's baptism only, not infant baptism. 

I know someone who was able to get a local church in this denomination to accept his son's infant baptism and am wondering how this is viewed theologically and practically by Sovereign Grace Ministries.


----------



## FenderPriest

Scott1 said:


> A couple questions:
> 
> Any idea of the status of the "Statement of Faith"?
> 
> For example,
> 1) do officers of the denomination take a vow that they agree with every part of it?
> 2) Is there a mechanism for taking exception to it?
> 3) Is there a process for enforcing it?
> 
> The baptism portion clearly details believer's baptism only, not infant baptism.
> 
> I know someone who was able to get a local church in this denomination to accept his son's infant baptism and am wondering how this is viewed theologically and practically by Sovereign Grace Ministries.



Hey Scott,

I passed your questions on to a friend who is in the process of ordination within SGM, and his response was along these lines:

1. Yes. Because we're aligning ourselves with the Reformed tradition, we're confessional. The statement of faith must be affirmed for ordination, but the statement of faith is also loose enough to incorporate folks who may disagree on some things while still being able to fellowship and serve together. 

2. I'm not sure. If you disagree with the statement of faith, then you're probably in the wrong place to serve as a pastor. As for members, there's wiggle room under some conditions. For example, I have a friend who's in a SGM church, who is not fully on board with Reformed theology (he's a Molinist). He wasn't prohibited from becoming a member, but the pastor had him sign something (I believe) that said he wouldn't undermine the teaching of the elders - they had some problems with members distributing literature contrary to church doctrine. I believe that there's grace on issues, but if there's a problem, church discipline may be in order.

3. My friend's thoughts sum this answer up well I think: "If the person is humble and eager to be taught, then yes it would be more of a process, but if at some point someone decided finally that they were a cessationist or an Arminian, they would not be able to remain on as a pastor for most obvious reasons."

As for the issue of baptism, I'm unsure how each church would address your situation. I would personally not consider an infant baptism as a valid, Biblical baptism in church membership discussions. I am not sure how my pastors would handle that issue - though I'm sure they've encountered it. As I said above, there's enough wiggle room in our statement of faith for pastors to have some-what varying views on issues (like the sacraments for example) without being in too much of a stark contrast. 

Anyhow, again, I hope this helps!
Yours,
~Jacob


----------



## KMK

How does SGM define a 'cessationist'? Is a cessationist someone who believes that there are no miraculous gifts today? What about a man who believes that miraculous gifts are possible but not the norm, nor should they be sought after?


----------



## FenderPriest

KMK said:


> How does SGM define a 'cessationist'? Is a cessationist someone who believes that there are no miraculous gifts today? What about a man who believes that miraculous gifts are possible but not the norm, nor should they be sought after?



I can't speak for everyone, but from talking with one of my pastors, we would see that as being either a modified cessationism, or a functional cessationism while being theoretically continuationist. The "Open-but-cautious" view is ultimately agnostic on the issue, and while seeking to hold back on the issue, doesn't take seriously Paul's command to eagerly desire the gifts. For someone like Lloyd-Jones who thought the gifts were particularly manifest during revival, we would differ and say that the gifts _may_ be heightened during those times, but we see Scripture defining them as common-place, and normal in churches.

There are, of course, different types of cessationism. What we would desire for those who affirm the gifts to be actively seeking and affirming them, not just theoretically upholding them. Cessationism can come two ways - theoretical denial of the gifts, or practical denial of the gifts.

Does that help at all?


----------



## Scott1

> 1. Yes. Because we're aligning ourselves with the Reformed tradition, we're confessional. The statement of faith must be affirmed for ordination, but the statement of faith is also loose enough to incorporate folks who may disagree on some things while still being able to fellowship and serve together.





> As I said above, there's enough wiggle room in our statement of faith for pastors to have some-what varying views on issues (like the sacraments for example) without being in too much of a stark contrast.



The Presbyterian and Reformed denominations I'm familiar with all require officers of the church to receive their confession (statement of doctrine) but usually do not require that for members. There are various methods for taking "exceptions" to the doctrinal standards for officers but generally the doctrinal standards are quite strictly applied (for officers).

For example, in the PCA, an officer must state if he has differences with "*any of their statements and/or propositions*" in the Westminster standards and if so, it must be stated on the record, and evaluated at the presbytery level, granted or not granted. Exceptions granted are even subject to review by the denomination as a whole through various mechanism for careful application. For example, the PCA has judicial precedent that the limited atonement and infant baptism cannot, under any circumstances, be excepted by her officers which can be (and was) brought up through church courts for enforcement.

The idea is that the Reformed Theology is not subject to individual intepretation or to the majority thinking of the current group of leaders at the moment. Rather, it is time-tested theology that God has marvellously entrusted to the Church. While the confession can be changed because it is not infallible, there is an intentionally very deliberative process with a high bar of agreement required to do so.

However, church members are only required to peaceably study the church's doctrine, submit to her authority and discipline, etc. as part of being part of the body of Christ.

In Sovereign Grace Ministries, it would seem to me that the basis for baptism (flowing from a covenantal view of Scripture or not) would be a very significant point of doctrine. It would flow from a fundamental understanding of Scripture.

In my friend's situation (incidentally he came from the PCA), he was able to persuade the Session to accept his son's infant baptism while Sovereign Grace Ministries Statement of Faith requires believer's baptism only. Maybe it would be different if he was to be a church officer. However, it sounded like some of the existing church officers believed, contrary to their Statement of Faith in infant baptism.

You might see how this would really concern some of us looking at this from the outside- concern for the peace and purity of the church (which involves doctrinal as well as moral purity), because it would seem to undermine the confessional unity that is a hallmark of the Reformed Theology. 

What do you think?


----------



## FenderPriest

Scott1 said:


> In Sovereign Grace Ministries, it would seem to me that the basis for baptism (flowing from a covenantal view of Scripture or not) would be a very significant point of doctrine. It would flow from a fundamental understanding of Scripture.
> 
> In my friend's situation (incidentally he came from the PCA), he was able to persuade the Session to accept his son's infant baptism while Sovereign Grace Ministries Statement of Faith requires believer's baptism only. Maybe it would be different if he was to be a church officer. However, it sounded like some of the existing church officers believed, contrary to their Statement of Faith in infant baptism.
> 
> You might see how this would really concern some of us looking at this from the outside- concern for the peace and purity of the church (which involves doctrinal as well as moral purity), because it would seem to undermine the confessional unity that is a hallmark of the Reformed Theology.
> 
> What do you think?



Scott, I think you bring up a very valid point to consider. I would, however, say that because SGM is rather young compared to, say, the Presbyterian tradition, that it is something that we will work out. Also, our Pastor's college has been going for only 10 years now, so as the college gets older, and the number of graduates increase, I foresee a tightening of the "edges" so to speak, over time.

Hopefully that's a substantive answer that's not too flimsy of a reply!


----------



## shelly

In 2 diff SGM churches the caution on Grudem was that he wasn't agreed with on all points and not to take it as scripture, still study things out. This is a major paraphrase but I think I got the idea across.

As far as caregroups go. Some can seem contrived, but in my experience even those became real over time. It does take time to trust people and be open. Transparency and trust is valued and an integral part of caregroup. If you attend a SCG church and don't become involved in caregroup; then you are missing out on the chance to see and experience grace in action. I've been gone for a year from the SGM I first went to. Some from the caregroup still keep up with us and fuss at us for not letting them know right away when things are going really rough for us. They still pray for us. We made some lifelong friends there in a relatively short period of time because of caregroup and their focus on relationships within the body of Christ. That's not the only focus but it is the one we were starved for.

God is so big and grace is so real and we all desparately need God. That sums up what I came away from SGM with.

I would say yes they are reformed
Not necessarily CT, it depends on who you talk to
church gov't- to me its very similar but stretched out farther

-----all the overseer pastors as a group 
----pastor that oversees several local pastors in a region
---local pastor
--caregroup leaders/elders
-members


Do you see coorelations in this gov't form with Presbyterian?
I could be off a bit; our SGM time was only a year.


----------



## KMK

FenderPriest said:


> I can't speak for everyone, but from talking with one of my pastors, we would see that as being either a modified cessationism, or a functional cessationism while being theoretically continuationist. The "Open-but-cautious" view is ultimately agnostic on the issue, and while seeking to hold back on the issue, doesn't take seriously Paul's command to eagerly desire the gifts. For someone like Lloyd-Jones who thought the gifts were particularly manifest during revival, we would differ and say that the gifts _may_ be heightened during those times, but we see Scripture defining them as common-place, and normal in churches.



Two more questions, if you don't mind. 

1) Many charismatics, although their doctrinal statements may not say so explicitly, believe that those individual churches or individuals that do not display supernatural gifts are disobedient or less mature in some area. Would this be true in SGM? In other words,, does SGM see the miraculous gifts given by God's grace, or are they earned through obedience/maturity?

2) Would an 'Open But Cautious' man such as Robert Saucey be welcomed in the SGM?


----------



## FenderPriest

KMK said:


> Two more questions, if you don't mind.
> 
> 1) Many charismatics, although their doctrinal statements may not say so explicitly, believe that those individual churches or individuals that do not display supernatural gifts are disobedient or less mature in some area. Would this be true in SGM? In other words,, does SGM see the miraculous gifts given by God's grace, or are they earned through obedience/maturity?



KMK, no worries about the questions! I think clarity on this issue comes when one understands what we as continuationists believe about the gifts. The main one in discussions seems to be the gift of prophesy. We would define the gift of prophesy as (roughly) merely human words brought to mind by God for the purpose of edifying the church. Because we would have this non-authoritative view of the gift of prophesy, and that it is everything from speaking a Spirit-lead word of encouragement to a brother, or virtually reading somebody's mail, we would say that even in cessationist churches they experience the gift of prophesy without recognizing it as such. So we would stand in contrast to those Pentecostal and Charismatic folks who say that cessationist churches are dry, bland, and Spirit-less. Not only is that not true, but it's not taking seriously the nature of the issue. So even in somebody like John Calvin - we'd say that he probably had the gift of prophesy from time to time in his sermons or counsel because it's just the nature of being in a Spirit-led Gospel ministry - even while Calvin himself denied the continuation of the gift (in Institutes IV in the last few chapters I believe). So we would say that even in spite of a church's position on the gifts, they will exist where Gospel ministry is happening _because_ it is God's grace that gifts them to his people. However, we would say that while churches may deny them, and yet experience them still (as I've described), that they should pursue the gifts (as Paul commands), and to do so is disobedience to some degree. So the gifts can and do exist in non-continuatinoist areas, they just are not pursued, which to us is unfortunate.



KMK said:


> 2) Would an 'Open But Cautious' man such as Robert Saucey be welcomed in the SGM?



To be honest, I don't know who he is so I can't say. Of course the Sunday school answer is that all are welcome in SGM!  In order to be a SGM _pastor_ one must affirm a continuationist perspective on the gifts, and be actively pursuing them as well as encouraging they exercise in the body. One cannot be a SGM pastor and not be encouraging the gifts in their lives and the lives around them. As for Robert Saucey himself, since I don't know him, or who he is, I can't say. I think we'd welcome him in membership and seek to encourage growth in the area of his understanding of the gifts to be more pursuit than "open but cautious". 

I hope this helps,
~Jacob


----------



## KMK

FenderPriest said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two more questions, if you don't mind.
> 
> 1) Many charismatics, although their doctrinal statements may not say so explicitly, believe that those individual churches or individuals that do not display supernatural gifts are disobedient or less mature in some area. Would this be true in SGM? In other words,, does SGM see the miraculous gifts given by God's grace, or are they earned through obedience/maturity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK, no worries about the questions! I think clarity on this issue comes when one understands what we as continuationists believe about the gifts. The main one in discussions seems to be the gift of prophesy. We would define the gift of prophesy as (roughly) merely human words brought to mind by God for the purpose of edifying the church. Because we would have this non-authoritative view of the gift of prophesy, and that it is everything from speaking a Spirit-lead word of encouragement to a brother, or virtually reading somebody's mail, we would say that even in cessationist churches they experience the gift of prophesy without recognizing it as such. So we would stand in contrast to those Pentecostal and Charismatic folks who say that cessationist churches are dry, bland, and Spirit-less. Not only is that not true, but it's not taking seriously the nature of the issue. So even in somebody like John Calvin - we'd say that he probably had the gift of prophesy from time to time in his sermons or counsel because it's just the nature of being in a Spirit-led Gospel ministry - even while Calvin himself denied the continuation of the gift (in Institutes IV in the last few chapters I believe). So we would say that even in spite of a church's position on the gifts, they will exist where Gospel ministry is happening _because_ it is God's grace that gifts them to his people. However, we would say that while churches may deny them, and yet experience them still (as I've described), that they should pursue the gifts (as Paul commands), and to do so is disobedience to some degree. So the gifts can and do exist in non-continuatinoist areas, they just are not pursued, which to us is unfortunate.
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Would an 'Open But Cautious' man such as Robert Saucey be welcomed in the SGM?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, I don't know who he is so I can't say. Of course the Sunday school answer is that all are welcome in SGM!  In order to be a SGM _pastor_ one must affirm a continuationist perspective on the gifts, and be actively pursuing them as well as encouraging they exercise in the body. One cannot be a SGM pastor and not be encouraging the gifts in their lives and the lives around them. As for Robert Saucey himself, since I don't know him, or who he is, I can't say. I think we'd welcome him in membership and seek to encourage growth in the area of his understanding of the gifts to be more pursuit than "open but cautious".
> 
> I hope this helps,
> ~Jacob
Click to expand...


These answers are very helpful!

Robert Saucey is the author of the 'Open But Cautious' portion of the book "Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?". I assumed that he coined the phrase and since you used it earlier I though you were refering to that particular book. 

From what you have said, it sounds like SGM is firmly planted in the 3rd Wave tradition and someone like Saucey would not be allowed to be a pastor.


----------



## Scott1

FenderPriest said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Sovereign Grace Ministries, it would seem to me that the basis for baptism (flowing from a covenantal view of Scripture or not) would be a very significant point of doctrine. It would flow from a fundamental understanding of Scripture.
> 
> In my friend's situation (incidentally he came from the PCA), he was able to persuade the Session to accept his son's infant baptism while Sovereign Grace Ministries Statement of Faith requires believer's baptism only. Maybe it would be different if he was to be a church officer. However, it sounded like some of the existing church officers believed, contrary to their Statement of Faith in infant baptism.
> 
> You might see how this would really concern some of us looking at this from the outside- concern for the peace and purity of the church (which involves doctrinal as well as moral purity), because it would seem to undermine the confessional unity that is a hallmark of the Reformed Theology.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, I think you bring up a very valid point to consider. I would, however, say that because SGM is rather young compared to, say, the Presbyterian tradition, that it is something that we will work out. Also, our Pastor's college has been going for only 10 years now, so as the college gets older, and the number of graduates increase, I foresee a tightening of the "edges" so to speak, over time.
> 
> Hopefully that's a substantive answer that's not too flimsy of a reply!
Click to expand...



This is helpful, thank you.

One of the advantages of having one of the time-tested Confessions such as the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, etc. is that it does not leave the testing of truth of key doctrine to a current group of leaders whose opinions are changing or developing. 

From what you've said, the opinions of the leadership of Sovereign Grace Ministries are changing and getting worked out in practice. 

Consider this- right now, the denomination is trending more-and-more reformed- what if the leader suddenly changes and says now, infant baptism _is_ the way? 

I think we can see the "cessationist" doctrine is not spelled out and nobody is quite sure where it will go. As that doctrine is classically defined, it cannot be Reformed Theology because classically, that doctrine involves new revelation. This contradicts Reformed Theology's high view of the authority of Scripture.

If Scripture is our authority, how can everyone under submission to a denomination's suddenly change- is it based on what one leader says? Was it based on firm Scriptural principle in the first place?

The issue of baptism in the denomination seems an example of this. Working covenant theology around believer-only baptism is hard enough (I realize it is possible), but having a practice of either way (infant or believer's only) reflects a need to seriously consider what the historic creeds have to say about this. 

Sometimes, we re-invent the wheel every generation and end up following men, who err and change, and change again, rather than the timeless truths of Scripture, which God has especially and providentially entrusted to us. Reformed theology is very aware of this- a tendency in human nature to follow men above Scripture (being a "respector of persons"). It is also aware of how uncommonly precious these doctrinal truths are, how prone they are to be distorted and their glory blotted out in each generation.


----------



## FenderPriest

Hey Scott, there were two things that came to mind to add to this. The first was that I'm not sure it is quite accurate or fair to say that the leadership of SGM's views are changing over time only because of practise. As the Puritans and the Reformed tradition speak louder in our churches, our doctrine becomes more tested and tried by the historic confessions. This seems to me to be in line with what you were talking about with the advantages of having the "time-tested Confessions". I agree, and I think SGM leadership would as well. As for what the leadership holds and the direction of SGM, I don't think there will be major changes. We would stand in the stream of the Reformed Baptist tradition on almost all areas of interpretation there. It is not as though a leader can change their opinion and suddenly all of SGM must adhere. If that were to occur, as in the case of the third-wave stuff, it would be a process of many years in discussion, reflection, study, etc. And, if it were to change, there would be a long process of this taking effect. One thing I've learned about the leadership in SGM through my time is that they take a painfully long time to do major shifts. My tendency is to see the change and do it; through wisdom, if there's a change seen to be needed, they take forever to do it. Further, SGM has a plurality of leadership, so we do not hing upon the personal whims of one man's thoughts.

Secondly, you were referring, I believe to our continuationist doctrine, and said, "As that doctrine is classically defined, it cannot be Reformed Theology because classically, that doctrine involves new revelation. This contradicts Reformed Theology's high view of the authority of Scripture." If I'm mistaken in my connection there, please forgive me. However, I did want to make clear that our understanding of the gift of prophesy is that it does not involve new revelation, and we avoid all language to hint that it does. We do not hold, nor practice that the gift of prophesy undermines the authority of Scripture, but would rather say that the gift of prophesy demands the classic, high view of Scripture in the Reformed confessions. I am not sure if you've read much of Grudem or Carson on this issue, but we would affirm their teaching on this issue. We never use language of "new revelation" when talking about the gift of prophesy, so I'm a little confused if you are directing this criticism that we do at our confession.


----------



## Scott1

> FenderPriest
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> Hey Scott, there were two things that came to mind to add to this. The first was that I'm not sure it is quite accurate or fair to say that the leadership of SGM's views are changing over time only because of practise. As the Puritans and the Reformed tradition speak louder in our churches, *our doctrine becomes more tested and tried by the historic confessions*.(bold added)



I understand and appreciate your sentiments and carefulness in this. I want to describe this fair and accurate and be charitable toward a fellow believer in line with the Ninth Commandment. This will help us all toward the end of the Honor and Glory of our God.

Your response (italics portion especially) helps illustrate the point- since Sovereign Grace Ministries is not officially doctrinally governed by one of the historic Confessions- it has to rely on an extra-confessional consensus of opinion among its leaders. This is true in many denominations outside of the Reformed Theology. I would submit this tends to come from an Arminian (not Calvanist) view of man and God and of the Church. 

Reformed Theology is characterised by...

*The unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

*


----------



## KMK

I agree that it sounds like SGM is being reformed. It is interesting to see that SGM has redefined what even 3rd Wavers call 'prophecy'. 

This discussion has been limited to the gift of prophecy, but how does SGM see something like the gift of apostleship? I think most 3rd Wavers believe there are still apostles today. Does SGM agree?

Also, how is SGM faring in the gender wars? I know that, much to Sam Storms' chagrin, Vineyard is now moving toward ordaining women.


----------



## Scott1

> FenderPriest
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> As for what the leadership holds and the direction of SGM, I don't think there will be major changes. We would stand in the stream of the Reformed Baptist tradition on almost all areas of interpretation there. It is not as though a leader can change their opinion and suddenly all of SGM must adhere. If that were to occur, as in the case of the third-wave stuff, it would be a process of many years in discussion, reflection, study, etc. And, if it were to change, there would be a long process of this taking effect.



Please feel free to challenge this Wikipedia citation. It is not an authoritative or primary source. 



> Previous Names
> Sovereign Grace Ministries was known as People of Destiny International until 1998, when its name was shortened to PDI Ministries.[3]. British restorationist leader Terry Virgo claims that the change was a result of then-leaders Larry Tomczak and CJ Mahaney becoming "increasingly uncomfortable" with the "People of Destiny International" tag[4] A further name change came in the early 2000s when the group adopted its current name of "Sovereign Grace Ministries."




According to this, the leadership has developed from a solidly Pentecostal (Arminian, dispensational, nonconfessional) doctrine. In the 1990's, it included a very different view of revelation and the authority of Scripture, the Sacraments, piety, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and church discipline than Reformed Theology. 

Currently, it seems, the leadership is truly considering the implications of their Reformed soteriology on these original doctrines (hence the doctrinal movement on "cessationism"- *see post #29 *for this). 



> "Reformed theology applies the doctrine of God relentlessly to all other doctrines, making it the chief control factor in all theology."
> 
> _What is Reformed Theology?_ RC Sproul, p 26



In Reformed Theology, every doctrine is inter-related- every doctrine relates in some way back to the doctrine of God. 

Recent history suggests Sovereign Grace Ministries is heading toward Reformed Theology at this time under this leadership. Away from its Pentecostal origin.

*Its current leadership is now considering on a deeper theological level, for the first time, its other church practices and doctrines in light of its Soteriology, particularly. Doing that definately is a Reformed characteristic!*

From earlier posts and based on the history, it was not clear the denomination held to a "five points" soteriology even a few years ago. Now, it appears the denomination does officially, though has not clearly stated it in a binding doctrinal statement.

Sovereign Grace Ministries revised its doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit because, when one comprehends the deepness of Reformed Theology, it does not at all accommodate the modern day Penetecostal or Charismatic doctrine on this. Those doctrines' presuppositions about the authority of Scripture and revelation are very different from Reformed Theology. The modern day Charismatic doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a step-down version of the Pentecostal doctrine.


----------



## FenderPriest

KMK said:


> I agree that it sounds like SGM is being reformed. It is interesting to see that SGM has redefined what even 3rd Wavers call 'prophecy'.
> 
> This discussion has been limited to the gift of prophecy, but how does SGM see something like the gift of apostleship? I think most 3rd Wavers believe there are still apostles today. Does SGM agree?
> 
> Also, how is SGM faring in the gender wars? I know that, much to Sam Storms' chagrin, Vineyard is now moving toward ordaining women.



KMK, if you read the Polity book that's been linked in the thread already you will see our position on the gift of apostleship. Fundimentally we would simply recognize that there is a place for men who pastor pastors (so to speak) and those men who are in leadership in that way we would say are filling an apostolic position (which we would see to be different than the office of Apostle instated by Christ for the writing of Scripture and the starting of the church). As for the gender wars, we are, by God's grace, not facing that issue within our own family of churches. 

Scott as for what you are saying, I appreciate your concerns and observations though I am not quite sure if you wrote for me to engage, or to express your thoughts.

~Jacob


----------



## Scott1

I think I began interacting with your post and then moved into my thoughts on application.


----------



## KMK

FenderPriest said:


> KMK, if you read the Polity book that's been linked in the thread already you will see our position on the gift of apostleship. Fundimentally we would simply recognize that there is a place for men who pastor pastors (so to speak) and those men who are in leadership in that way we would say are filling an apostolic position (which we would see to be different than the office of Apostle instated by Christ for the writing of Scripture and the starting of the church).



I have read the document, but you have been so gracious in giving us insight to the finer points of SGM, I thought I would ask the question anyway. I appreciate your candor.



FenderPriest said:


> As for the gender wars, we are, by God's grace, not facing that issue within our own family of churches.



I am glad that SGM has made this explicit statement:



> Women play a vital role in the life of the church, but in keeping with God’s created design they are not permitted “to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:12 ESV). Leadership in the church is male.


----------



## Jared

KMK said:


> I agree that it sounds like SGM is being reformed. It is interesting to see that SGM has redefined what even 3rd Wavers call 'prophecy'.
> 
> This discussion has been limited to the gift of prophecy, but how does SGM see something like the gift of apostleship? I think most 3rd Wavers believe there are still apostles today. Does SGM agree?
> 
> Also, how is SGM faring in the gender wars? I know that, much to Sam Storms' chagrin, Vineyard is now moving toward ordaining women.



Wayne Gudem has distanced himself from the Vineyard in recent years, and this is the main reason.


----------



## Scott1

In preparing to close this thread, I must say it has been helpful to my understanding. My prayer is it will be helpful to others also as we all seek clarity and discernment for God's Honor and Glory.

I appreciate the interactions and reference links. Thanks especially to Fender Priest for an "insiders" view on this topic.

I will now answer the original post question, after having reviewed all posts again:



> Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice, particularly in relation to:
> 
> 
> 1) The doctrines of Grace
> 2) Covenant theology
> 3) Church government



No.


Words mean things. 

Using a broad definition of "Reformed," it cannot include Sovereign Grace Ministries as it is presently constituted. Perhaps "Calvinistic charismatics" but not "Reformed."

Here are my points in summary:

1) Reformed theology is confessionally-defined. Sovereign Grace Ministries is not and has no real mechanism to further its peace and purity based on unity of doctrine.

2) Sovereign Grace Ministries holds a pentecostal "non-cessationist" doctrine. On a surface level, this may seem like only a view of whether or not certain gifts continue. However, this doctrine, properly understood, undermines the full and final authority of the Holy Sprit speaking through Scripture, an attribute of Reformed Theology. 

3) Reformed theology involves at least a covenantal approach to Scripture. This is only vaguely defined in Sovereign Grace Ministries and is producing confusion leading to both credo and paedo baptism belief and practice.

4) Reformed theology requires something more than a mere "memorial" understanding of the sacraments, particularly the Lord's Supper. Sovereign Grace Ministries has not developed a doctrinal understanding of the spiritual nature of the sacraments.

Having used the broadest biblical, Reformed definition I can, Sovereign Grace Ministries is not there. There is evidence the denomination is moving in the direction of even a Reformed ecclesiology, but it is not there yet. Asking why the denomination, with an apparent Calvinist trend, is not reformed is answered by...



> The short answer why this is true is because they [Reformed doctrines] are all inter-related to one another!
> 
> It's like asking if you have arrived when you have a plane ticket to New York and are in flight overhead of Newark- you may be close but Newark is very different; it is not New York.


----------



## KMK

Scott1 said:


> In preparing to close this thread, I must say it has been helpful to my understanding. My prayer is it will be helpful to others also as we all seek clarity and discernment for God's Honor and Glory.
> 
> I appreciate the interactions and reference links. Thanks especially to Fender Priest for an "insiders" view on this topic.
> 
> I will now answer the original post question, after having reviewed all posts again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice, particularly in relation to:
> 
> 
> 1) The doctrines of Grace
> 2) Covenant theology
> 3) Church government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> Words mean things.
> 
> Using a broad definition of "Reformed," it cannot include Sovereign Grace Ministries as it is presently constituted. Perhaps "Calvinistic charismatics" but not "Reformed."
> 
> Here are my points in summary:
> 
> 1) *Reformed theology is confessionally-defined. Sovereign Grace Ministries is not and has no real mechanism to further its peace and purity based on unity of doctrine.*
> 
> 2) Sovereign Grace Ministries holds a pentecostal "non-cessationist" doctrine. On a surface level, this may seem like only a view of whether or not certain gifts continue. However, this doctrine, properly understood, undermines the full and final authority of the Holy Sprit speaking through Scripture, an attribute of Reformed Theology.
> 
> 3) Reformed theology involves at least a covenantal approach to Scripture. This is only vaguely defined in Sovereign Grace Ministries and is producing confusion leading to both credo and paedo baptism belief and practice.
> 
> 4) Reformed theology requires something more than a mere "memorial" understanding of the sacraments, particularly the Lord's Supper. Sovereign Grace Ministries has not developed a doctrinal understanding of the spiritual nature of the sacraments.
> 
> *Having used the broadest biblical, Reformed definition I can, Sovereign Grace Ministries is not there.* There is evidence the denomination is moving in the direction of even a Reformed ecclesiology, but it is not there yet. Asking why the denomination, with an apparent Calvinist trend, is not reformed is answered by...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The short answer why this is true is because they [Reformed doctrines] are all inter-related to one another!
> 
> It's like asking if you have arrived when you have a plane ticket to New York and are in flight overhead of Newark- you may be close but Newark is very different, it is not New York.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


With point #1, I assume you mean that SGM does not fully subscribe to one of the 'Reformed' confessions as it has been pointed out that they do have a confession.

As to point #2, I don't know if it is fair, after all that has been discussed in this thread, to say SGM holds a 'Pentacostal' doctrine. I do not think the Pentacostals would agree with you on that one. 

As to point #3, debate within a denom concerning the subjects and mode of baptism is common even among the 'Reformed'. 

As to point #4, I agree. 

---------

I can understand why Scott does not want to label SGM as 'Reformed' because of his definition. However, we must recognize that, to the Christian community as a whole, the definition of 'Reformed' is much broader than what Scott would allow. That is not to say that Scott is in error in his definition, just a point of clarification for those who might be lurking.

As for myself, I agree with Scott that SGM might be more appropriately labeled 'Calvinistic' rather than 'Reformed'.


----------



## Scott1

It's fine to agree on some and disagree on other points supporting the conclusion Sovereign Grace Minisitries is not Reformed. 

For clarification, only for those reading this thread:



> 2) Sovereign Grace Ministries holds a pentecostal "non-cessationist" doctrine. On a surface level, this may seem like only a view of whether or not certain gifts continue. However, this doctrine, properly understood, undermines the full and final authority of the Holy Sprit speaking through Scripture, an attribute of Reformed Theology.



The reasoning here is based partly on Sovereign Grace's official doctrine *(see post #29). *The denomination officially holds a pentecostal view (their own words) but that was modified to allow the stepped-down charismatic view "too". The implications here are significant and do not seem to be understood by many in the denomination.

Also, 



> 3) Reformed theology involves at least a covenantal approach to Scripture. This is only vaguely defined in Sovereign Grace Ministries and is producing confusion leading to both credo and paedo baptism belief and practice



The emphasis here was not on whether adult or infant baptism is Reformed- it is on the fact that the denomination *does not have a covenantal approach to Scripture worked out so they can take a reasoned doctrinal position on covenant.*


----------

