The SBC’s “Founders Ministries” is a Fraud
Founders Ministries is an organization supposedly dedicated to bringing back the SBC’s Calvinistic/Reformed roots. Four years of research went into “The Truth About New Calvinism,” but I never had any reason to doubt that. And as far as New Calvinism in the SBC via Mohler, Dever et al, I figured it could have entered into the SBC in any number of ways after the explosion of Sonship Theology and it wasn’t worth pursuing.
Last night, I was reading an article written by John H. Armstrong. It was his article on Time Magazine’s assessment of New Calvinism, and the following statement caught my attention:
Look at the divisions in the Southern Baptist Convention and you will see my point. I have watched this movement for neo-Calvinism from its infancy. I personally attended the first meeting (and several more the years following) of the group that started this effort back in the 1980s. I personally knew the founder who dreamed up the idea of recovering Calvinism in the SBC and then spread the “doctrines of grace” very widely. He is now with the Lord. Look at the quarrels between these neo-Calvinists and the various strands of emergent (and emerging) Christianity. I was also involved in the various “gospel” recovery groups which were begun, now creating large gatherings of folk who believe they are the people who are preaching and recovering the “biblical gospel.”
Armstrong’s involvement with the original group seeking to spread the doctrine in SBC circles was of interest to me because Armstrong is one of the few who openly admit that he adopted his theology from the Australian Forum via Present Truth, the Forum’s theological journal: here , and here .
“I personally knew the founder who dreamed up the idea of recovering Calvinism in the SBC….” Hmmm, who is he talking about? I emailed a few of my sources and didn’t get a reply, so I started asking myself questions: “Isn’t Founders Ministries the one spreading Calvinism in the SBC? But which Calvinism? New or old?” So I went to their website and started poking around. I found a historical essay about the ministry here .
So guess who the founder was? Earnest Reisinger, one of the forefathers of New Covenant Theology. In fact, he goes way back before the doctrine was dubbed New Covenant Theology by Jon Zens. As I document in the book, Jon Zens and the founder of the Australian Forum worked together to develop NCT. According to Zens:
At the fall Banner of Truth Conference in 1979, Ron McKinney spoke with lain Murray, Ernie Reisinger and others about the possibility of having a conference where some aspects of Reformed theology could be discussed and evaluated by men of differing viewpoints.
That conference ended up being the first “1980 Council on Baptist Theology” held in Plano, TX. It was the coming out party for New Covenant Theology.
Furthermore, Ernie Reisinger’s “Law and Gospel” is a staple reference for students of Sonship Theology (Gospel Discipling—The Crying Need of the Hour: Stephen E. Smallman; Executive Director, World Harvest Mission, November 1997). The fact that Reisinger’s theology is based on New Covenant Theology can be observed in this article written by him and posted on the Founders blog: See article here.
The totality of my research on this will be compiled and added as an addendum to the second addition of volume one: “The Southern Baptist Connection.” Obviously, Armstrong’s deceased friend who started the movement was Reisinger, who passed away in 2004. And the movement he spoke of is Founders Ministries.
Founders Ministries is a fraud. They are not bringing Calvinism back to the SBC, they are ushering in what Walter Chantry called a contemporary “novelty” and selling it as Calvinistic theology. Chantry also called it “neo-antinomianism.” Think what you will about Calvin, but he was not an antinomian. It is all a big, fat LIE.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Let;s see the quotes from these guys about Reisinger.
LikeLike
Oh don’t worry–you will.
LikeLike
Paul,
The thing that amazes me the most about you is that when you are confronted with evidence that you are wrong, you dig your heels in rather than admitting that you are wrong. This is insuring that people will not take you seriously.
LikeLike
Scott,
This Founders thing has opened up a whole new can of worms. Ascol and E. Reisinger are Brinsmead babies. They knowingly set their minds to taking over the SBC with this doctrine years ago. NCT is an intricate part of the Forum doctrine. I now moderate comments on this blog because of the unrelenting harassment I get from NCT/NC koolaid drinking hacks. So why would I post these comments? Because I am very confident in my research thus far. While you guys are at it, I am still waiting for a response in regard to Ascol fictitiously stating that Founders Press published the Barcellos book.
LikeLike
“The Resolution he authored to the 2010 SBC conference speaks for itself.”
Are you referring to the church discipline resolution?
LikeLike
No, but I am certainly interested in what you are referring to!
LikeLike
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1189
It is from 2008. It sounds a lot milder than all the chatter leading up to it on the blogs as I remember it.
Here is a link about it:
“Messengers adopted an amendment by Tom Ascol, prominent in the Calvinist-inspired Founder’s Movement in the Southern Baptist Convention, urging “the churches of the SBC to repent of any failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any failure to obey Jesus Christ in lovingly correcting wayward church members.”
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3342&Itemid=104
LikeLike
I don’t think I can find a problem with the resolution. Maybe you could help me
LikeLike
“I don’t think I can find a problem with the resolution. Maybe you could help me:
I was hoping you could help me by defining “wayward”.
LikeLike
Not sure SBs have enough sense to know how to define “wayward”, but I would define it as anyone who is living contrary to the teachings or practices set forth in the New Testament Scriptures.
LikeLike
“Not sure SBs have enough sense to know how to define “wayward”, but I would define it as anyone who is living contrary to the teachings or practices set forth in the New Testament Scriptures.”
Which can mean to some that you are not obeying your pastor. So, it really is determined on what they want to emphasize or how they interpret scripture.
LikeLike
I suppose I should respond, though I really have no desire to do so to be honest. You have misused my comments pretty significantly. Since I wrote what I did you would have been served to “ask me” before you used my words to make a point, several in fact, that I never actually made at all. You research is quite flawed and it could have been corrected if you had merely written to me before you used my words in this context. I have no controversy with you or the SBC but the facts should be cleared up where possible.
LikeLike
John,
You can buy the book which is full of citations from your writings. I usually don’t ask people to clarify what they write. Also, I think you communicate in your writings very well. The book cites some of your writings which clearly indicate that you believed that the Australian Forum rediscovered the lost gospel of the Reformation. I understand that you specifically mention Present Truth, but that was the theological journal of the Forum. Also, my decision to make points from your writings were also based on citations from others; namely, Jon Zens et al. If there is any injustice going on, it’s the fact that the real father of all of this business going on isn’t getting proper recognition. Also, the publishing committee which consisted of professionals including a legal secretary, would disagree with your assessment.
LikeLike
While you are “straining out gnats and swallowing camels,” the Evangelizing that your espouse as necessary, goes undone. Can we try the Truth? I did notice you challenge everyone to ‘buy your book’ if they have any questions about your stance. Hopefully, by 2014, this is a dead issue.
LikeLike
Thanks for stopping by David. I will be doing an essay on Woodland’s misrepresentations in your doctrinal statement which will include extensive citations and abundant internet tags. Your doctrinal statement is worded in a way to strongly suggest a grammatical interpretation of Scripture, but I can show that’s not really what you guys believe. It’s deliberate deception save the possibility that you don’t really understand what “Pastor” Davis believes.
Yes, let’s try truth–a heavy dose is coming your way with lots of internet exposure.
LikeLike