danmpem
Puritan Board Junior
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.
Sovereign Grace Ministries
- Thread starter Scott1
- Start date
- Status
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
I wonder if he was mainly speaking of his local body or SGM in general?
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Junior
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).
SGM is much more clearly defined as being Calvinistic in their soteriology, Reformed in their historical references and line of thinking than the Vineyard is.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
Puritanboard Commissioner
From Sovereign Grace Ministries "Statement of Faith":
FenderPriest
Puritanboard Freshman
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
Puritanboard Freshman
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.
Last edited:
FenderPriest
Puritan Board Junior
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
FenderPriest
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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?
Last edited:
FenderPriest
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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.
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?
Last edited:
FenderPriest
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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, 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.
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!
I hope this helps,
~Jacob
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
Please feel free to challenge this Wikipedia citation. It is not an authoritative or primary source.
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).
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.
Last edited:
FenderPriest
Puritan Board Junior
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
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.
I am glad that SGM has made this explicit statement:
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
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:
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...
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:
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...
Last edited:
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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:
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,
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.
For clarification, only for those reading this thread:
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,
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.
- Status
