Comments on: The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 7; Southwood’s New Calvinist Elders are Following The Usual M.O.

By: gracewriterrandy

gracewriterrandy — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:14:51 +0000

Lydia,

There is actually nothing wrong with following humans as long as they are faithfully following Christ. This was The apostle Paul’s exhortation. Like it or not, Christ has called some to be leaders, and it is our responsibility to follow them.

By: Tim Scott

Tim Scott — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 19:35:34 +0000

Paul, ok. I see where your coming from. Appreciate you taking the time to explain this a little better.

By: paulspassingthoughts

paulspassingthoughts — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:26 +0000

Scott,
I think to a great degree, what you are saying is true, and not that this figures into the Southwood situation, but there is a really big problem with New Calvinism being covert. This changes the picture somewhat because the movement is out to take over Christianity. At Clearcreek, a group of men came over from Emmanuel Baptist with the sole intent of taking over the Chapel. These are takeovers, often hostile, and dissenting parishioners often ask for help from the outside, and don’t get it for the exact reasons that you stated. Hey, if a parishioner who is under bogus church discipline seeks help from the outside, should he get it? Absolutely. How? Universal church discipline. Church A who is in the same fellowship of churches as church B ostracizes church B until the leaders and congregation repent. It has happened before, and rightfully so. Other congregations standing by silent while believers are brought under false discipline to muzzle them is disgraceful, cowardly, and just plain despicable.

By: Tim Scott

Tim Scott — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:14:59 +0000

One quick response. To Paul, point taken (in regard to the exposing) but i still think you can do that in a way that does not engage a local congregation although as you said, all the facts aren’t known. To anonymous, we do not have the same apostolic authority as the apostles. I have no right to place myself inside of a local congregation that I am not a member of and begin to engage their leadership or congregation without being engaged by them first (which may have been the case here, I am sort of confused by the series of events here but that isn’t important). Every local church is to govern their affairs and while I am free to disagree and expose false doctrine I do not have apostolic authority in and over that church (not saying that Paul is doing that here and that may be the baptist coming out in me.)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 05:34:30 +0000

Surely we would not say that the writers of the new testament were limited to a local congregate. There is no difference between letters and blogs in their range or scope merely in the time they take to arrive to the intended audience. The apostle Paul was well known for his struggles with those who taught false doctrines not so much different from the ones that are contended today. Would we have told Paul he could only speak to a certain group or sect of believers? Would he have listened? I highly doubt it.

By: paulspassingthoughts

paulspassingthoughts — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:36:05 +0000

Scott,

Unfortunately, I’m not at liberty to give you the whole picture, but even based on what is evident, I am not going to stand by and watch it happen. And let us not forget, their pastor made this public by posting the situation on their blog, ie., the world (as in, the whole world) wide Web. Furthermore, he propagates his heresy on the same blog. As Christians, we are to “demolish” “EVERY ‘THOUGHT’” that raises itself up against the knowledge of God. Also, I’m not sure what I am doing is any different than MacArthur’s constant fustigation of Joel Olsteen from his pulpit. Olsteen isn’t my cup of tea, but I think he is a whipping boy for the reformed guys to show that they are defenders of the faith. And by the way, what is the difference between “Your Best Life Now” and “Christian Hedonism.” Good grief.
paul

By: Tim Scott

Tim Scott — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:03:41 +0000

Paul, yes you answered my question but I think we are going to disagree about whether being a part of the universal Church allows us to place ourselves into a local church we have no direct ties to. Writing and blogging and speaking out against a movement is one thing but you have moved well beyond that by placing yourself directly into local church affairs in Alabama! By doing that you have placed yourself well outside the boundaries of the NT. My brother I am not trying to be harsh or arguementative but I am concerned on this one. Even though we don’t agree on a lot I have learned alot from your writing (even though we come to very different conclusions) but as I said, writing and blogging and speaking out against a movement is one thing but….

By: paulspassingthoughts

paulspassingthoughts — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:39:27 +0000

….and I do believe that’s a post.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:38:08 +0000

Paul,

way to go, you’ve got it very right. That Jean F. Larroux, III Pastor at Southwood sounds saturated with New Calvinism. He speaks the New Calvinist language. Just look at the first sentence he said about his testimony on the Sourthwood website:

“I have worked very hard at being a Pharisee (and was quite successful) and now work very hard at trying to rest in Grace.”

Larroux is promoting New Calvinism. That’s why he is recommending New Calvinist books on the website:

Jesus + Nothing = Everything

The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification

A Scandalous Freedom,

If somebody doesn’t know that these are New Calvinist books they need to wake up and smell the coffee.

I sure feel sorry for that Keith Denton. The guy is blind to the seriousness of this issue. It’s just unbelievable to me that he’s a ruling elder and obviously doesn’t have a clue about what’s going on. If he did, he would be thanking you for the warnings.

Arkansas Bill

By: David

David — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 06:00:46 +0000

Keith Denton,
You said, “If you care to inquire periodically as to our progress, perhaps someone involved in the process and able to speak with authority on the matter would be willing to provide a statement at a future date. In the meantime, thank you for your prayers.”

I found your choice of words entertaining if not overtly obvious when you gave the parameters for those who could be considered valuable sources. Not only must they be, ” involved in the process” they must also be, “able to speak with authority” Translation: Unless I or another elder of equal worth comes to you with any information you are not to accept it as valid testimony, and you are not likely to hear from us any time soon.

Not the first time I have heard that, “elders are beyond question and the only ones qualified to give an answer”, speech. Still as scathing and transparent as it has ever been. Is that really the approach you want to take?