# Sovereign Grace Ministries



## bill c. (Apr 14, 2006)

In another thread Contra Mundum mentioned this family of churches which seems to be headed by CJ Mahaney. Has anybody had any experience of them? From their website they seem to have a more contemporary style of worship using music that seems similar to Indelible Grace. Where would they fall on the Reformed spectrum?


----------



## Irishcat922 (Apr 14, 2006)

"Charismatic"


----------



## bill c. (Apr 14, 2006)

Do you mean "Toronto Blessing" charismatic or just a quieter holding their hands up at the service charismatic?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 14, 2006)

Quieter charismatic. We have old aquaintances that went this direction and I believe Josh Harris (Gregg and Sono Harris' son...ie, I Kissed Dating Goodbye) is part of one of these churches.


----------



## ServantofGod (Apr 14, 2006)

My sister is a member of the Sovereign Grace Church, and I will be splitting my time between there and my church. It has a more charismatic singing style, is not the most orginized church, but it teaches the truth.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 14, 2006)

It is a "quieter" charismatic. Maybe we could call it the "Wayne Grudem Pentecostal" ? Joshua Harris is now the senior pastor of the church CJ Mahaney started, in Maryland I believe. CJ Mahaney is a kind of "apostle" in his denomination. He resigned the sr. pastor position a couple years ago in order to devote himself more to the SGM side of the house, this umbrella which is really a denominational structure, whatever they call it. He and a couple others function basically as bishops over various regions of churches in that group, which are still more or less autonomous in government. There is one of the churches right here in this area.


----------



## bill c. (Apr 14, 2006)

I've been attending Tenth Pres here in Phila and my wife is finding the worship service too staid. She tends more toward the charismatic. I think we might try the closest SGM church near us which is in NJ. I guess this raises another issue....How far do you travel to get to church? I mean you want to get involved in the life of the parish but if you live at a distance it's rather tough. I guess it was easier in days past when there were more churches that taught the Gospel.


----------



## ServantofGod (Apr 14, 2006)

You go to Tenth? That is the coolest church ever. Are you going to the PCRT?


----------



## bill c. (Apr 14, 2006)

I would love to but right now the family budget is too tight.


----------



## ServantOfKing (Jun 2, 2006)

From what I have read, many of the Sovereign Grace churches claim only 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism, leaving out Limited/ Particular Atonement. I'm not sure that really counts as reformed. Anyone's thoughts?


----------



## beej6 (Jun 2, 2006)

Maybe Reformed-friendly  Particular atonement is the point that usually folks have the hardest time with, though if you don't believe that, the only truly logical extensions are either universalism or Arminianism, neither of which are acceptable alternatives...


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 2, 2006)

I actually attended Sovereign Grace Ministries church in Chesapeake Virginia from 2004-05 off and on, which CJ Mahaney preaches at. I went to their Christmas banquet which was quite an undertaking, and pretty lavish and top notch for any church.

I've met Mahaney before. He is a very good guy.

Every message I heard was sound, and frankly they have some solid preaching, though I might have some minor doctrinal issues on basis of what I read in the prospective member kit for guests. All things considered, it's actually a good church ministry to attend. I actually like their book store. 

Plus, I think their support structure for ministers and the church body has something many churches do not-- including traditional Presbyterian and Congregationalists. Mahaney is as active as ever before, in spite of resigning his Senior Pastor at the church in Gaithersburg Maryland, where Joshua Harris took over. They network extensively, and 'keep messages' fresh, and keep their pastors from burn out by rotating in a mix. So Mahaney travels a lot, and is sorta an "apostle" figuratively speaking as Bruce noted. 

I think its complimentary. Most of all of their speakers are sound, and they do not believe in parring off the rough edges of doctrine on soteriology. If they can preach the Gospel sound-- then I think they are worth visiting even if their so called Grudem-charismatic doctrine might compel one to seek long-term membership elsewhere.

Sorry, Bruce, I know you're being tongue-in-cheek and colloquial in part but "Pentecostal" is not an appellation I would use to describe Sovereign Grace... perhaps your "Wayne Grudem charismatic" or "quiet charismatic" appellation suffices. They do not speak in tongues or roll around on the floors barefoot... They might tinge on Piper's tacit charismatic affirmations regarding spiritual gifts.

[Edited on 6-2-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 2, 2006)

good post!


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> From what I have read, many of the Sovereign Grace churches claim only 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism, leaving out Limited/ Particular Atonement. I'm not sure that really counts as reformed. Anyone's thoughts?


 You have been misinformed. They are rock solid on soteriology regardless of they handle (or mishandle) baptism, ecclesiology, regulative principle of worship, etc.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jul 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> From what I have read, many of the Sovereign Grace churches claim only 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism, leaving out Limited/ Particular Atonement. I'm not sure that really counts as reformed. Anyone's thoughts?



I wouldn't count it. Also, if what you're saying is true, then there is already disunity among those churches. 



> _Originally posted by beej6_
> Maybe Reformed-friendly  Particular atonement is the point that usually folks have the hardest time with, though if you don't believe that, the only truly logical extensions are either universalism or Arminianism, neither of which are acceptable alternatives...



I agree with BJ. The logical extensions are logically inconsistent with the other doctrines of grace. If there is disagreement in these various doctrines, who is apt to be seen as divisive? We have had more than enough experiences with churches that are Reformed in name but when certain issues are pressed, we find out just how reformed-friendly they really are.


----------



## ServantOfKing (Jul 30, 2006)

About a year ago, I had read on the Sovereign Grace church's website in the Daytona Beach area that they were "essentially reformed" and they expounded on 4 of the 5 points. However, now that I go back to the website, particular, substitutionary atonement seems to be clearly taught. This is good to know!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 30, 2006)

I know I'm being cranky, but as we were discussing in another thread, is a church rightly called "reformed" that doesn't get the sacraments, worship, and the church right?

Not according to Belgic Confession Art 29.

How about "predestinarian, mildly charismatic, evangelicals" or some such.

Let's leave the adjective "Reformed" for those churches that confess and adhere to the Reformed confessions.

Your local curmudgeon,

rsc



> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> ...


----------



## Ivan (Jul 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I know I'm being cranky, but as we were discussing in another thread, is a church rightly called "reformed" that doesn't get the sacraments, worship, and the church right?
> 
> Let's leave the adjective "Reformed" for those churches that confess and adhere to the Reformed confessions.
> ...



Dr. Clark,

I agree. And where does that leave me? The church I attend is certainly not Reformed, not by any stretch of the imagination (and I really have no way of correcting that situation). I believe if I understand everything correctly I would only differ greatly with most here of the Presbyterian perspective in the area of baptism. 

I hold to the 1689 London Confession of Faith.

Not Reformed, but a Calvinist?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jul 31, 2006)

In a way, the same battle over title occurred with "Protestantism." Calling myself a protestant in the seventeenth century was a lot more specific and clear than using the label in the 21st century. The distinction comes across as "cranky" but the intent is noble. If we are too cavalier with terms, then "œReformed" will be just as ambiguous as "œProtestant" is today.

The original _protestant_ confessions were reformed and both charismatic interpretations and practices as well as free worship, in contrast to RPW, are certainly not supported by the confessions that defined these terms upon their inceptions.

Sovereign Grace Ministries are not reformed. They are churches which disagree with the reformed and confessions.

I would agree that they are more like "œpredestinarian, mildly charismatic, evangelical" Baptist churches.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 31, 2006)

No argument from me Chris, Ivan, and Scott. I wouldn't be at home at Sovereign Grace Ministries long-term, and was a visitor for a season. I believe in the traditional confessional Reformed faith, albeit along historic Baptist lines. I am a LBCF 1689er. I grow tired of making compromises, and hope to find a church when I move that preaches the whole counsel of God unashamedly.

I still like C.J. Mahaney and Johua Harris, doctrine notwithstanding. They would probably object to you saying they are not Reformed. I can assure you from their church bookstore, they are reading much of the same books that you guys are reading.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jul 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I still like C.J. Mahaney and Johua Harris, doctrine notwithstanding. They would probably object to you saying they are not Reformed. I can assure you from their church bookstore, they are reading much of the same books that you guys are reading.



I only wish more confessional Presbyterian churches were armed with more preachers like CJ and Josh. I appreciate their unashamed passion for the gospel and their willingness to clearly communicate it at all cost.


----------



## Ivan (Jul 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> The distinction comes across as "cranky" but the intent is noble.



Noble indeed, 'tis true. I do not feel that you or anyone else here expressing their views are "cranky". I respect my Presbyterian brethren. I count you all as part of my family of faith. 

Frankly, I'm here to learn more about the Reformed faith. Not too many better places than this one for that venture. I highly doubt that I will untie myself from my Baptist moorings, but I am happy to learn from my Reformed brethren. I believe we share more things in common than not.


----------



## taylonr (Jul 31, 2006)

CJ Mahaney has an awesome testimony. I would suggest listening to his speech from T4G. And if you can swing the panel sessions, get those. I was going to talk to him afterwards, but the line to talk to him was easily 10 people, and he was taking 5-10 minutes per person, so I left


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 31, 2006)

> Dr. Clark,
> 
> I agree. And where does that leave me? The church I attend is certainly not Reformed, not by any stretch of the imagination (and I really have no way of correcting that situation). I believe if I understand everything correctly I would only differ greatly with most here of the Presbyterian perspective in the area of baptism.
> 
> ...



Well, as I wrote in the other thread, the phrase "Calvinistic Baptist" is an oxymoron. Calvin would spin in his unmarked grave! Infant baptism was essential to his theology and it's essential to our confession.

So we tossed around a variety phrases. I like "confessional Baptist."

If you're worshipping in a confessional Presbyterian church, they allow you to retain your Baptistic convictions. If you come to my congregation, you're welcome, but you may not come to the table or join the congregation. It's an historic difference between the Three Forms Tradition and the American Presbyterian tradition.

We love you, but we want you to let Abraham and Isaac back into the covenant of grace. 

rsc


----------



## Ivan (Aug 1, 2006)

Dr. Clark said:
"Well, as I wrote in the other thread, the phrase "Calvinistic Baptist" is an oxymoron. Calvin would spin in his unmarked grave!"

*Perhaps Calvin would spin in his grave if he knew such a word as "Calvinistic" existed.*

Dr. Clark said:
"If you come to my congregation, you're welcome, but you may not come to the table or join the congregation." 


*I wonder, do all Presbyterians on this board hold to this?*

Dr. Clark said:
"We love you, but we want you to let Abraham and Isaac back into the covenant of grace." 

*Why would you think that I don't have Abraham and Isaac in the covenant of grace?*

*I do not respond to you or ask these question with any degree of disrespect. I must say you have me really thinking now and not altogether in a good way.*

[Edited on 8-1-2006 by Ivan]

[Edited on 8-1-2006 by Ivan]


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Dr. Clark said:
> "Well, as I wrote in the other thread, the phrase "Calvinistic Baptist" is an oxymoron. Calvin would spin in his unmarked grave!"
> 
> ...




No, although I think some might hold to something similar. Dr. Clark is in the United Reformed Church, a church from the Dutch Reformed tradition, and that is apparently their historic practice, and he made clear the differences between those holding to the Three Forms and those holding to the WCF in his post.

Preybyterians differ on the subject, with some who would argue that parents refusing to baptize their children should be disciplined (which is consistent with the WCF, I think, which says condemning and neglecting it is a great sin) and others saying it's ok just so long as the baptist does not propagate his baptistic views within the church. 

Of course the historic Baptist practice is to bar paedobaptists from the table and from church membership, and the latter of course still holds true for most today who identify as Baptists. The widespread practice of open communion in Baptist churches was largely a 20th Century innovation. 

I too have to confess at being a bit puzzled at the comment about "letting Abraham and Isaac back into the covenant of grace" since I've never met a Baptist who took them out.

[Edited on 8-2-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Ivan (Aug 1, 2006)

Oops, my mistake. Thought he was a Presbyterian since he taught at a Presbyterian seminary.

No one would be barred from our table (who trust Christ and have followed Him in baptism) and I know many, if not most, Southern Baptist churches that would not bar a Presbyterian from their tables, but you are right about it being a 20th century innovation. I remember that in the Southern Baptist church I grew up in we had closed communion. 

However, I see a problem here...if we Baptists will allow others to commune at our table, why can't they join our churches, no matter how they have been baptized?

As to Abraham and Issac, I consider them as my brothers in the faith. I expect to see them in heaven. How is this keeping them out of the covenant of faith?

[Edited on 8-2-2006 by Ivan]

[Edited on 8-2-2006 by Ivan]


----------



## Ivan (Aug 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> I too have to confess at being a bit puzzled at the comment about "letting Abraham and Isaac back into the covenant of grace" since I've never met a Baptist who took them out.



Dr. Clark?


----------

