The SBC is Shooting Innocent Wolves: is That a Good Thing?
We Southern Baptists have our standards. I have been a Southern Baptist since 1983, and we are notorious for not confronting sin in our churches, unless the sin happens to be Calvinism. Leave? Why? It’s way too much fun admitting our hypocrisy at SBC gatherings and watching the veins swell-up in people’s necks.
So, apparently, there is a Calvinism controversy going on in the SBC. Southern Baptists are concerned about an “aggressive Calvinism” that is growing in the SBC. The latest episode where those rascally Calvinists got a learnin’ was the rejection of Pleasant Valley Community Church’s bid to become part of the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association. The Association voted 104-9 to deny membership because, “It affirms the doctrine of election and grace. While we know the doctrine is not heresy, we do recognize that it is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA.”
This particular association also voted to separate from a church in the association due to some sort of compromise that was deemed to be a serious issue. Therefore, they have something right that is rare today; they understand that church discipline is a universal matter. There are situations where Matthew 18:15-20 needs to be carried out between churches and the fourth step is the breaking of Christian fellowship between those churches. Church A will no longer fellowship with church B—this sends a very powerful message. Point in case: member/spouse A files an unbiblical divorce on member/spouse B. Their church leaders will not deal with the problem, other than to “pray about it.” Spouse B goes to the leadership of another church in the association and pleads for help. The other church tells the couple’s church to deal with the problem or they will. This would be the first step of church discipline between churches, and though I get a lot of flak for this position, I stand by it and believe it is 100% biblical.
So kudos for DMBA—except for the fact that Pleasant Valley Community Church is innocent of being Calvinistic. I checked out their website; they are New Calvinists, NOT (old) Calvinists. Big difference. In fact, old Calvinists don’t even like New Calvinists. One well known Calvinist said of New Calvinism:
….a seriously distorted Calvinism falling far, far short of an authentic life of obedience to a sovereign God. If this kind of Calvinism prospers, then genuine biblical piety will be under attack as never before.
And….
The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.
Yet another well known Calvinist said:
This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.
So, if real Calvinists are saying, “Ya, they are like us in name only, but they are dangerous and don’t obey God,” wouldn’t it behoove SBC folk to learn what the difference is? If they won’t fellowship with the devil they do know, what about the devil they don’t know? Seems to me if you are going to break fellowship with people, you should know what they are really guilty of.
Per the usual, we Southern Baptists are the best at making idiots of ourselves even when we do the right thing. The DMBA said, “While we know the doctrine is not heresy, we do recognize that it is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA.”
Ugh. First, Old Calvinism is NOT “VASTLY” different from Southern Baptist doctrine. I have NEVER heard a Southern Baptist pray for someone to save themselves. Southern Baptist are only Arminians when they are evangelizing. After they get someone saved; trust me, they believe God does it all! Southern Baptists have a lot to learn from Calvin on discipleship. Then the DMBA said, ”…. we know the doctrine is not heresy.” That’s true about Calvinism, BUT NOT Pleasant View! Pleasant View Community Church does in fact hold to a heretical doctrine—Old Calvinists even say so!
So, the SBC is shooting “wolves,” but not the ones that are eating the sheep. Is that ok? After all, a wolf is a wolf, right? No, I have a better idea. The SBC needs to unite with the real Calvinists that have been in the SBC forever (and have never caused a problem) to get rid of New Calvinism. In the process, we might learn something from them.
New Calvinism is the New Covenant Theology/Gospel Sanctification/Sonship Theology wolf in sheep’s clothing. They are not honest about who they are and deliberately hide behind the ignorance thereof. Um, DMBA, did you go to Pleasant View’s website? They say that they are a “Acts 29 church” (the church planting organization). Acts 29 came out of World Harvest which was founded by the father (Dr. John Miller) of Sonship Theology, a theology that has been banned in many Presbyterian churches (the church founded by Calvin). Also, ever heard of the Emergent Church, and their ties to Acts 29?
Please, please, my fellow Southern Baptists, get your head out of, um, er, uh, the sand.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Paul, Acts 29 has Mark Driscoll’s carbon footprint all over it. He initially led it. I have been in a few Acts 29 church plants and all were led by young, brash know it all’s who had a fake piety until you dared disagree with them.
If you are not familiar with Driscoll, he is a time bomb waiting to go off. I especially am concerned that he claims to be sent visions of molestation and adultery when he counsels people: Here is a video of him:
http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2011/08/mark-driscoll-i-see-things.html
But that is the tip of the iceburg concerning him. These Acts 29 guys, for the most part, are totally immersed with Driscoll (who is really a bully and has abusive tendancies) and Piper. They are a scary bunch. There are blogs devoted to Driscoll’s bizarre sermons and writings.
LikeLike
Pleasant Valley Community Church…..you got the name wrong
LikeLike
“Pleasant Valley Community Church ” as reported by ABP,, SBCV, and the WR. So, help me out here.
LikeLike
check out their church website and read their 60 page statement of belief. Some of the big names are in it.
http://owensborochurch.com/ (under “about us”)
“Seems to me if you are going to break fellowship with people, you should know what they are really guilty of.”
Paul, I think people have a hard time putting their finger on it. After all, as you said, how can one go against the “Gospel” and the term “sovereignty of God”? But they are re-defining things and in their quest, their zeal is in your face. Their teaching is so convoluted they need 60 page belief statements. They speak in upside down infused grace justification/sanctification. It is all gobblygook that sounds so intellectually righteous. The weary, the poor in spirit, the uneducated don’t stand a chance with these guys. Perhaps the Association needs your book?
So, the Association says, they have no kindness, humility, compassion, etc. Welcome to the world of Driscoll where you oust elders who dare disagree with you and form a coup to take over the church and install only few yes men elders. (My sources tell me it went from 30 elders to 4) Then declare in a sermon, you will go “old testament” on them for daring to speak out. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=445277
Or where you send a cease and desist letter from your lawyers to a small church (without even calling them first!)in Calif that has the same name:Mars Hill.
See http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/10/28/the-branding-of-mars-hill/
Acts 29 churches have the Driscoll “spirit”. because they learn church planting at their “bootcamp”. And, guess what? The SBC is funding some Acts 29 churches through NAMB. Our new NAMB president is Mohler’s old pastor who loves Acts 29.
I can understand the Associations concern. But they failed to make the case.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Wow. I have known for months that this stuff was out there someplace, because it always follows this kind of doctrine. It’s just kind of freaky to see it in black and white.
LikeLike
What concerns me about this is that there is no foundational agreement among professing believers on the basics of scriptural good/evil. These celebrities are able to make evil good and good evil. They twist scripture to make ‘lording it over’ others biblical (they use what they call sound doctrine to do this which is really their doctrine).
They have totally turned the Priesthood of believer on it’s head to elevate themselves. They have turned the Sovereignty of God into something that makes God sound like a cruel narcissist. They have redefined the relationship within the Trinity in several ways depending on the audience to further their personal agenda. (Sonship/ESS) They have set up themselves as the gatekeepers for what is sin overriding the conviction of the Holy Spirit in a believers life thereby keeping their followers feasting on milk and obeying them instead of maturing..They have effectively done this by overriding the doctrine of sanctification to make it fit a lifetime of total depravity for a believer.
What I have found most illuminating in all this is how so many of these NC preachers need interpreters. These are men who make a living communicating to their public, yet when it comes to understanding what they are teaching, we are told we have either misrepresented them or misunderstood (because we are not smart enough). When the truth is they really don’t make much biblical sense when you analyze their teaching as every Berean should. They sound intellectual. They make it sound “deep”. They sound passionate. Sort of like how so many people fell for “hope and change’.
There was a time in the previous century when most people could appeal to scripture and come to some agreement on the basics of good/evil. Those days are over. And that is what makes NC so very very dangerous and impossible to have productive interactions with them.. They are more Rome than they want to admit in expediting NC. Their followers have exchanged God (The Trinity) for their favorite celebrity. They love “Reformed’ to the point it has become an idol.
LikeLike
Your sources are wrong. PVCC began with one pastor and moved to 4 elders over 5 years.
If you guys are going to trash another church publically you should be man enough to say something to the pastors of “Pleasant View”. You don’t seem to be following your own advice concerning Matt 18. Jesus seems to prefer we begin face to face.
Also it would serve you well to at least get the name of the church correct. -10 in the credibility category.
LikeLike
Pleasant Valley Member,
Again, my sources are ABP, SBCV, and the WR. Second, your leaders don’t fall under Matthew 18 concerning disputes among brothers–your leaders fall under the category of false teachers. And if you are man enough–read the book: the truth about new calvinism.com
LikeLike
This may have changed in the past couple of years, but last statistic I read reported that only about 10% of Southern Baptist pastors claimed to be Calvinists. Having encountered many of them, I believe this statistic to be accurate. It may be a good thing for some of the folks here do discover whether they are only against “New Calvinism” or against old Calvinism as well.
LikeLike
“If you guys are going to trash another church publically you should be man enough to say something to the pastors of “Pleasant View”. You don’t seem to be following your own advice concerning Matt 18. Jesus seems to prefer we begin face to face.”
The typical strawman argument with Matthew 18. No one at PV personally “offended” me. We are discussing something in the NEWS. It is a public matter. Even Methodists are allowed to talk about it on blogs. :o)
This would mean you are not allowed to comment on Ted Haggard unless you contacted him first and met with him face to face?. Good luck with that. But even then, I happen to know first hand that Matt 18 is used to actually manage image for many church leaders. I know because I used it myself in mega church strategies for dealing with situations. It has been used like that for a long time. It is a control tactic. And the whole passage is badly misinterpreted.
And the NC people think any questioning of their actions/doctrines are “trashing” them. I always get a kick out of that since it is the tactic liberals have used for years.
“Also it would serve you well to at least get the name of the church correct. -10 in the credibility category.”
One thinks if they repeat a mantra long enough it makes it true, re: credibility? perhaps you should contact the media sources that got the name wrong. Be sure and tell them the same thing.
LikeLike
The key figure is that 30% of those coming out of SBC seminary’s said they were Calvinist. And that was a few years ago.This, I think, was research from Lifeway.
LikeLike
Lydia,
But I don’t think they are Calvinists, I think they are New Calvinists.
LikeLike