# Church deemed "too Calvinistic"



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 13, 2011)

Church deemed too Calvinist for Kentucky Baptist association 
By Bob Allen 
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 

OWENSBORO, Ky. (ABP) – A Kentucky Baptist association denied membership to a church after a credentials committee found its confessional statement too Calvinistic, according to a report in the Western Recorder.

Daviess-McLean Baptist Association voted 104-9 to deny membership to Pleasant Valley Community Church in Owensboro during its annual meeting held Oct. 17-18, the Kentucky Baptist Convention news journal reported in its Oct. 25 issue.

“Our concern in the initial stages of our investigation revolved around the fact that Pleasant Valley Community Church’s confessional statement is one that (is) Calvinistic in nature,” the newspaper quoted from a recommendation by the association’s credentials committee. “It affirms the doctrine of election and grace.” 

*The irony here is that this Baptist association retains it's 'sovereign' right to elect whosoever they will and pass over others in it's membership, but in their thinking, God does not have the same right. *


----------



## Rufus (Nov 13, 2011)

Here's the churches website: www.pleasantvalleycommunitychurch.com


----------



## Jared (Nov 13, 2011)

Oh boy.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 13, 2011)

This likely means the particular church is rightly understanding the "T" of T-U-L-I-P (with its attendant applications)


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Nov 14, 2011)

See Tom Ascol's comments on this development here: Founders Ministries Blog: More Anti-Calvinism in the SBC


----------



## Martin (Nov 14, 2011)

The churches response to the decision from their website:

https://acrobat.com/app.html#d=CQKS4K7XyFGV8Ab0P6X85A


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Nov 14, 2011)

The response from the Community Church seems much more gracious than the Association. Having grown up in the SBC, I wonder if the fact that the "Community Church" did not have the word "Baptist" in the church's name started them off on the wrong foot. From my experience, SBC strain Baptists expect churches to "fly the flag" in the name.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 14, 2011)

I was wondering if this issue would reach the PB. A few of the pastors from my church (Heritage Baptist Church) mentor the pastors at Pleasant Valley Comunity Church, so this issue is pretty close to home. PVCC is just 3.6 miles down the road from us, and the LORD has been blessing that congregation tremendously. They are entirely Calvinistic and are a part of Acts 29 and the SBC, but the local association does not care that PVCC is one of the most missional churches in our community. It is _ridiculous_ that they were not admitted, and in fact the voting margin for not allowing them in was HUGE, as in 100 SBC churches in the local association voting 'no' for their entrance. What's even more absurd is the fact that recently there was a church voted out of the local association because they endorsed homosexuality, but there was far more debate about whether they church should be allowed to stay, and the number of churches that voted 'yes' to remove that church was several dozen less than the number of churches who said 'no' to allow this faithful church _purely_ because of the doctrines of grace.

I assure you that the brothers at PVCC have been extremely patient and humble throughout this process, and this action by the local association is because of their practical denial of the Baptist Faith and Message. This isn't really surprsing though, because the local director of missions for the SBC has a lot of influence in certain local churches and he has openly said that he would sooner have moderate evangelicals--those who deny inerrancy--than Calvinists. This is the same man who opposed my church from entering the SBC, but he had no authority to stop us from entering the nationwide convention; however, we would have no chance of entering the local association or probably even the Kentucky-wide convention (not that we have any desire to do so anyway...).


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 14, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> I was wondering if this issue would reach the PB. A few of the pastors from my church (Heritage Baptist Church) mentor the pastors at Pleasant Valley Comunity Church, so this issue is pretty close to home. PVCC is just 3.6 miles down the road from us, and the LORD has been blessing that congregation tremendously. They are entirely Calvinistic and are a part of Acts 29 and the SBC, but the local association does not care that PVCC is one of the most missional churches in our community. It is ridiculous that they were not admitted, and in fact the voting margin for not allowing them in was HUGE, as in 100 SBC churches in the local association voting 'no' for their entrance. What's even more absurd is the fact that recently there was a church voted out of the local association because they endorsed homosexuality, but there was far more debate about whether they church should be allowed to stay, and the number of churches that voted 'yes' to remove that church was several dozen less than the number of churches who said 'no' to allow this faithful church purely because of the doctrines of grace.
> 
> I assure you that the brothers at PVCC have been extremely patient and humble throughout this process, and this action by the local association is because of their practical denial of the Baptist Faith and Message. This isn't really surprsing though, because the local director of missions for the SBC has a lot of influence in certain local churches and he has openly said that he would sooner have moderate evangelicals--those who deny inerrancy--than Calvinists. This is the same man who opposed my church from entering the SBC, but he had no authority to stop us from entering the nationwide convention; however, we would have no chance of entering the local association or probably even the Kentucky-wide convention (not that we have any desire to do so anyway...).



It is actions such as this that tempt me bring up my suspicion that anti-Calvinists are outside the faith. This total lack of concern for proper teaching as well as a hatred of the truth is very telling of what their faith is in.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 14, 2011)

I've actually come across some Calvinistic Southern Baptists who also had issues with the church because they're Acts 29 and for some reason they felt their statement of faith had to be 60 pages long. If I recall correctly they may have been non-denominational originally and didn't have any oversight or sponsorship from a church in the assn. prior to seeking to join the assn., which is always helpful. Perhaps that had something to do with the overwhelming margin, which is striking from the outside looking in. 

Regardless, every explanation I've seen from the representatives of the association mentioned Calvinism and not much else. My understanding is that they were pretty much told "no" before it even came to a vote. 

Calvinist soteriology is definitely on the rise in the SBC and will be for a good while. (And it's not just coming out of Southern and Southeastern Seminaries.) But that will likely only cause more conflict in the short term. Acts 29 is an additional wild card, as many SBC Calvinists (not to mention non-Calvinists) have issues with aspects of their approach, as do many of the Reformed people on this board, for that matter. 

Andrew's statement about preferring "moderates" over Calvinists about says it all. Also, for some reason this association has not adopted the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message and still affirms the neo-orthodox 1963 version. I wonder how many "moderate" congregations there are in this assn. and how active they are. (In many cases today they aren't very active and are generally withdrawn from convention life after losing control.) But not adopting the 2000 sticks out to me. I can guarantee you it's not because they didn't like the Lord's day article being changed in the 2000! :: 

On top of that, many Southern Baptists will falsely refer to Presbyterian government as being hierarchical, which is doubly false given the more congregational aspects of the OPC and especially the PCA compared to traditional Presbyterianism. Yet some associational Directors of Missions (DOM) practically act like Bishops. 

I do think some of the non-Calvinists mean well and seek to understand and work together despite disagreements. Some have become more Calvinistic. But the ignorance of some of them is appalling. I think a lot of it may be because many of the older ones were taught by "moderates" (read--liberals) in the Seminaries back in the 60's and 70's when they were in control of the SBC.


----------

