can the church ‘sue’ to recover the salary paid to him during the period of time he was in deceiving the church about his doctrine and trying to actively ‘subvert’ the church’s doctrine? i would. it is a classic definition of ‘ministerial fraud’
-mike
This Pastor divided the Church while cleaning out the treasury before he resigned. The Church is going through healing with barely enough in the treasury to pay for electricity, let alone hire an attorney.
People that left the church are beginning to come back but many haven’t returned and most of them don’t even know he was a “Covert Calvinist” or understand his doctrine because he never revealed it.
This Pastor’s resume’ has many holes and short tenure’s in the places he has served and I don’t think he has the resources to repay the fiscal damages to our church, which would be the equivalent of two years salary and the cost of him, his wife and kids’ arrival and departure. (which was around 10,000.00).
The only option would be to sue the Southern Baptist Convention which isn’t an option because they are dealing with the same problem with “Stealth Calvinist”.
The best option is being accountable to God. Our Church like many others were vulnerable because of our lacking of God’s word that stimulates opportunity for a Calvinist that embraces Tyranny.
One major problem with the previous Pastor he had issues of Unforgiveness from his former church and divorce from his parents and now I;m sure he is carrying Unforgivenessinto into his new church in Pennsylvania from our little church because we were forcing his hand to disclose his “Methodology” a term I used during his tenure which we learned was a type of Calvinism he wouldn’t describe.
In his last message he said before he forgives somebody he has to “Watch Them” while comparing himself to what Paul went through.
in Christ
David Mark.
The actual cost of our church support during our previous Pastor and his family was equivalent 2 years was about 90,000.00 plus about 10,000.00 for transportation. Maybe it was the price we had to pay for lacking the knowledge of God’s word.
i agrfee that if your church body has the info on the church this ‘pastor’ is currently ‘serving’… or rather, serving himself to… the elders should get together an either call or visit the elders of that church to warn them of the Wolf in Christian’s clothing that they have there… and urge them not only to kick him out ofthe ministry, but also toss him out of the church, as if he is a non-believer.
this man is evil and needs to be shown for the ‘false christian’ and destroyer of the body of christ that he is.
-mike
We have corresponded with the SBC.
The SBC, by appearence has unsuccessfully addressed the Doctrinal Strife that “Covert” and “Stealth” Calvinist has created. This isn’t isolated and Preachers like the previous one we had, are being trained to embrace and teach the Gospel with a reckless and abusive “Methodology” in how they interpret Scripture.
*** I have to believe they are also being trained to not to fully disclose their Doctrine upfront. I have to believe they are trained to accept the call of churches that don;t fully explore in detail their resume’ or their Doctrine. This by itself probably is freeing them from litigation.***
The SBC and many Congregations (including ours) aren’t Biblically well versed enough or prepared to deal with a “Covert” Calvinist and the many dialects that exist in the Reformed Calvinist School.
Even the Calvinist are dealing with Contradictions and Strife among themselves..
Our former Pastor is either going to change his Methodology or his new church will open their eyes wide open to what the Bible actually says. If his new Church is a “Dutch Reformed” Geneva style Calvinistic Church his ministry may survive.
I believe our former Pastors’ refusal of not disclosing his Doctrine to any of his former Ministries may haunt him, because he was accepting monetary support under a “Stealth Ministry” which may be a very serious form of Stealing and Dishonesty.
This may hang a cloud of contradiction over his ministry and his Methodology which spent tremendous time focusing on the consequences of Sin and with some Election interpretations and less time on the redemption of Sin through Christ.
Many Calvinist in the SBC don;t condone this behavior and many Calvinist will not accept and struggle to believe this is really happening.
If the SBC doesn’t make a tough and difficult stand and “Split”, their future will only be exacerbated with “Doctrinal Confusion”. Many Calvinist want to take the credit of starting the SBC which is disputable and complicated.
By appearance many Pastor’s and Leaders in the SBC are friends causing them to avoid the harsh reality of “Doctrinal Indifference” they have with each other. at the detriment of Church Congregations who weren’t Biblically equipped in dealing with Dishonest Preachers and their “Methodologies”.
So the problem is back on us, not the courts.
lydiasellerofpurple@yahoo.com said, on November 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM
“I have to believe they are also being trained to not to fully disclose their Doctrine upfront”
David Mark,
You might want to pick up Ernest Riesinger’s “Quiet Revolution”. That is exactly what it teaches for taking over the SBC . It is so ingrained now, it is a way of life in the SBC ecause most of our seminaries are following that Reformed model of covert indoctrination. More and more are catching on to it thanks to the internet.
Here it is on the Founders site (ON of the Calvinists groups who want to take the SBC back to Calvinism)
It is basically a manual on how to take over a church by stealth for Calvinism. The YRR who have been trained at SBTS, SEBTS, etc are not very good at the “stealth” part because they have been taught to be so arrogant.
lydiasellerofpurple@yahoo.com said, on November 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM
This is from chapter 3 and will give you some insight into their arrogance:
“In Chapter 2, we offered our diagnosis of the problem with American evangelicalism: It is sick and dying because it has abandoned its Calvinistic foundations. Our prescription for a cure is that our churches return to the old paths from whence they drifted.
We have reasons to hope for a full recovery.
In the first place, Calvinistic Christianity is nothing more and nothing less than biblical Christianity. It follows, then, that the future of Christianity itself is bound up in the fortunes of Calvinism. Obviously the future of Christianity itself is not in doubt, for our Lord declared that the gates of hell shall not prevail against God�s church. And yet we should be quick to acknowledge, of course, that God is not obligated to keep his church existent in America. In God�s sovereign providence, Christianity has been wiped out of other cultures over the centuries of its history. Still, we have hope for revival because our hope is in the God who revives. The same God who opened our own eyes can open the eyes of others.”
David Mark, The “old paths” they want to return us to include slavery, church state, torture, imprisonment, infant baptism, magistrates, etc. You cannot pick and choose the “old paths”. The underlying foundation of the “old paths” is tyranny. Despots. You got to glimpse a bit of how it looks when it comes into a church.
The “old paths” are a horrible tyrannical bloody mess with many wounded left in the path’s wake.
Your “old paths” statement does hit a nerve. Being spiritually dependent on Christ, can’t be taught in a theology consumed with practicing Election and their reckless Methodology full of Religion.
I have compared the tyranny of Calvinist legalism to the Pharisees who were practicing their own legalistic Election Theology on Christ when Christ was eating the Sinner and Tax Collector. The Pharisee considered Christ a “Doctrinal Challenge”.
The hard core Calvinist are putting heavy burdens on themselves by pin-pointing in their Congregations who are going to be a “Doctrinal Challenge” and then judges them to hell, the same way the Pharisee judged the Sinner and Tax Collector. (and Christ) Mark 2:16-17
So many things that could be said about all these comments, but brotherly to the Calvinists is not one of them. Have any of you ever sat down and in a loving friendly manner and sought to understand their position, or allowed them to understand yours? Ignorance is the foundation of disdain for another. It seems the most vocal anti-Calvinists are ignorant of what the Calvinst actually believes, but hey, what does that matter.
Also, it is easy for both sides to demonize the other, and so you are not alone in this, but instead of trying to discredit the Calvinist beliefs based on your perception of their behavior–ad hominem argumentation–it would be more credible if you could interact with their actual beliefs. I am not saying you cannot critize their behavior, but it seems to me–I could be wrong–the comments are hyper-critical because you disagree with their understanding of the Scripture. Both sides have men who are bad examples; would you like me to dismiss your beliefs out-of-hand just because I knew someone who believed as you did, but lived in sin? It is not very fair. There are many godly Calvinists, and there are likely many godly men in your camp, but just as Mother Theresa’s good example does not prove Roman Catholic doctrine to be true, so the bad example Calvinist does not disprove Calvinism.
You guys need to pick it up a little in the love department because you are talking about fellow Christians, and if you do not beleive they are brothers, then at least contend against them with respect and gentleness. You all are no exactly rude, but you certainly are looking at the Calvinist in the worst possible light. Scripture says, “Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.” 1 Peter 3:8. This is something all parties involved need. lydiasellerofpurple@yahoo.com 11/23/12 and David Mark’s comment on Nov. 24, 2012 epitomize what I am talking about. It is always wise to engage the intellect before the emotions.
We owe it to each other not to impugn bad motives on each other just because we interpret Scripture differently. I assume you are doing you best to understand Scripture, and I assume the Calvinist is doing the same. Shouldn’t we at least give each other credit for that? Therefore, it is best to argue our points from Scripture, and try not to get personal and hurl insults–as did Lydiasellerofpurple; he must know that what he spoke of regarding the old paths is insulting and inflammatory, and most of all untrue.
Also, David Mark misunderstands the Calvinist view of election if he thinks we practice election or do not depend on Christ. The Calvinist does not understand Peter that way regarding “making your calling and election sure.” Why don’t you ask a seasoned Calvinist how he views that Peter passage. It might be enlightening. As well, don’t just say what the passage does not mean, tell me what it does mean.
Most of all, we should be slow to speak and quick to hear. Let’s allow each person to define what he believes, rather than telling the other what he believes, then, and only then, should we speak in critique of their stated position. That is harder and requires research and listening to the finest representatives and interacting with the best they have to say, but love, truth and reason depend on it.
Paul’s Passing Thoughts TANC Publishing Under Construction Blog Talk Radio Andy Young
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
mark,
can the church ‘sue’ to recover the salary paid to him during the period of time he was in deceiving the church about his doctrine and trying to actively ‘subvert’ the church’s doctrine? i would. it is a classic definition of ‘ministerial fraud’
-mike
LikeLike
Mike,
This Pastor divided the Church while cleaning out the treasury before he resigned. The Church is going through healing with barely enough in the treasury to pay for electricity, let alone hire an attorney.
People that left the church are beginning to come back but many haven’t returned and most of them don’t even know he was a “Covert Calvinist” or understand his doctrine because he never revealed it.
This Pastor’s resume’ has many holes and short tenure’s in the places he has served and I don’t think he has the resources to repay the fiscal damages to our church, which would be the equivalent of two years salary and the cost of him, his wife and kids’ arrival and departure. (which was around 10,000.00).
The only option would be to sue the Southern Baptist Convention which isn’t an option because they are dealing with the same problem with “Stealth Calvinist”.
The best option is being accountable to God. Our Church like many others were vulnerable because of our lacking of God’s word that stimulates opportunity for a Calvinist that embraces Tyranny.
One major problem with the previous Pastor he had issues of Unforgiveness from his former church and divorce from his parents and now I;m sure he is carrying Unforgivenessinto into his new church in Pennsylvania from our little church because we were forcing his hand to disclose his “Methodology” a term I used during his tenure which we learned was a type of Calvinism he wouldn’t describe.
In his last message he said before he forgives somebody he has to “Watch Them” while comparing himself to what Paul went through.
in Christ
David Mark.
LikeLike
Mike,
The actual cost of our church support during our previous Pastor and his family was equivalent 2 years was about 90,000.00 plus about 10,000.00 for transportation. Maybe it was the price we had to pay for lacking the knowledge of God’s word.
In Christ
David Mark
LikeLike
Sorry to hear about all of this DM, but it is all too familiar. If there is any way I can help: pmd@inbox.com
LikeLike
David Mark —
Your current elders and congregation should warn the church he is now attending/leading. They could well end up in the same situation.
LikeLike
mark,
i agrfee that if your church body has the info on the church this ‘pastor’ is currently ‘serving’… or rather, serving himself to… the elders should get together an either call or visit the elders of that church to warn them of the Wolf in Christian’s clothing that they have there… and urge them not only to kick him out ofthe ministry, but also toss him out of the church, as if he is a non-believer.
this man is evil and needs to be shown for the ‘false christian’ and destroyer of the body of christ that he is.
-mike
LikeLike
Mike,
We have corresponded with the SBC.
The SBC, by appearence has unsuccessfully addressed the Doctrinal Strife that “Covert” and “Stealth” Calvinist has created. This isn’t isolated and Preachers like the previous one we had, are being trained to embrace and teach the Gospel with a reckless and abusive “Methodology” in how they interpret Scripture.
*** I have to believe they are also being trained to not to fully disclose their Doctrine upfront. I have to believe they are trained to accept the call of churches that don;t fully explore in detail their resume’ or their Doctrine. This by itself probably is freeing them from litigation.***
The SBC and many Congregations (including ours) aren’t Biblically well versed enough or prepared to deal with a “Covert” Calvinist and the many dialects that exist in the Reformed Calvinist School.
Even the Calvinist are dealing with Contradictions and Strife among themselves..
Our former Pastor is either going to change his Methodology or his new church will open their eyes wide open to what the Bible actually says. If his new Church is a “Dutch Reformed” Geneva style Calvinistic Church his ministry may survive.
I believe our former Pastors’ refusal of not disclosing his Doctrine to any of his former Ministries may haunt him, because he was accepting monetary support under a “Stealth Ministry” which may be a very serious form of Stealing and Dishonesty.
This may hang a cloud of contradiction over his ministry and his Methodology which spent tremendous time focusing on the consequences of Sin and with some Election interpretations and less time on the redemption of Sin through Christ.
Many Calvinist in the SBC don;t condone this behavior and many Calvinist will not accept and struggle to believe this is really happening.
If the SBC doesn’t make a tough and difficult stand and “Split”, their future will only be exacerbated with “Doctrinal Confusion”. Many Calvinist want to take the credit of starting the SBC which is disputable and complicated.
By appearance many Pastor’s and Leaders in the SBC are friends causing them to avoid the harsh reality of “Doctrinal Indifference” they have with each other. at the detriment of Church Congregations who weren’t Biblically equipped in dealing with Dishonest Preachers and their “Methodologies”.
So the problem is back on us, not the courts.
In Chris,
David Mark
LikeLike
“I have to believe they are also being trained to not to fully disclose their Doctrine upfront”
That’s the understatement of the century.
LikeLike
“I have to believe they are also being trained to not to fully disclose their Doctrine upfront”
David Mark,
You might want to pick up Ernest Riesinger’s “Quiet Revolution”. That is exactly what it teaches for taking over the SBC . It is so ingrained now, it is a way of life in the SBC ecause most of our seminaries are following that Reformed model of covert indoctrination. More and more are catching on to it thanks to the internet.
Here it is on the Founders site (ON of the Calvinists groups who want to take the SBC back to Calvinism)
http://www.founders.org/library/quiet/
It is basically a manual on how to take over a church by stealth for Calvinism. The YRR who have been trained at SBTS, SEBTS, etc are not very good at the “stealth” part because they have been taught to be so arrogant.
LikeLike
This is from chapter 3 and will give you some insight into their arrogance:
“In Chapter 2, we offered our diagnosis of the problem with American evangelicalism: It is sick and dying because it has abandoned its Calvinistic foundations. Our prescription for a cure is that our churches return to the old paths from whence they drifted.
We have reasons to hope for a full recovery.
In the first place, Calvinistic Christianity is nothing more and nothing less than biblical Christianity. It follows, then, that the future of Christianity itself is bound up in the fortunes of Calvinism. Obviously the future of Christianity itself is not in doubt, for our Lord declared that the gates of hell shall not prevail against God�s church. And yet we should be quick to acknowledge, of course, that God is not obligated to keep his church existent in America. In God�s sovereign providence, Christianity has been wiped out of other cultures over the centuries of its history. Still, we have hope for revival because our hope is in the God who revives. The same God who opened our own eyes can open the eyes of others.”
David Mark, The “old paths” they want to return us to include slavery, church state, torture, imprisonment, infant baptism, magistrates, etc. You cannot pick and choose the “old paths”. The underlying foundation of the “old paths” is tyranny. Despots. You got to glimpse a bit of how it looks when it comes into a church.
The “old paths” are a horrible tyrannical bloody mess with many wounded left in the path’s wake.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Your “old paths” statement does hit a nerve. Being spiritually dependent on Christ, can’t be taught in a theology consumed with practicing Election and their reckless Methodology full of Religion.
I have compared the tyranny of Calvinist legalism to the Pharisees who were practicing their own legalistic Election Theology on Christ when Christ was eating the Sinner and Tax Collector. The Pharisee considered Christ a “Doctrinal Challenge”.
The hard core Calvinist are putting heavy burdens on themselves by pin-pointing in their Congregations who are going to be a “Doctrinal Challenge” and then judges them to hell, the same way the Pharisee judged the Sinner and Tax Collector. (and Christ) Mark 2:16-17
In Christ
David Mark
LikeLike
So many things that could be said about all these comments, but brotherly to the Calvinists is not one of them. Have any of you ever sat down and in a loving friendly manner and sought to understand their position, or allowed them to understand yours? Ignorance is the foundation of disdain for another. It seems the most vocal anti-Calvinists are ignorant of what the Calvinst actually believes, but hey, what does that matter.
Also, it is easy for both sides to demonize the other, and so you are not alone in this, but instead of trying to discredit the Calvinist beliefs based on your perception of their behavior–ad hominem argumentation–it would be more credible if you could interact with their actual beliefs. I am not saying you cannot critize their behavior, but it seems to me–I could be wrong–the comments are hyper-critical because you disagree with their understanding of the Scripture. Both sides have men who are bad examples; would you like me to dismiss your beliefs out-of-hand just because I knew someone who believed as you did, but lived in sin? It is not very fair. There are many godly Calvinists, and there are likely many godly men in your camp, but just as Mother Theresa’s good example does not prove Roman Catholic doctrine to be true, so the bad example Calvinist does not disprove Calvinism.
You guys need to pick it up a little in the love department because you are talking about fellow Christians, and if you do not beleive they are brothers, then at least contend against them with respect and gentleness. You all are no exactly rude, but you certainly are looking at the Calvinist in the worst possible light. Scripture says, “Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.” 1 Peter 3:8. This is something all parties involved need. lydiasellerofpurple@yahoo.com 11/23/12 and David Mark’s comment on Nov. 24, 2012 epitomize what I am talking about. It is always wise to engage the intellect before the emotions.
We owe it to each other not to impugn bad motives on each other just because we interpret Scripture differently. I assume you are doing you best to understand Scripture, and I assume the Calvinist is doing the same. Shouldn’t we at least give each other credit for that? Therefore, it is best to argue our points from Scripture, and try not to get personal and hurl insults–as did Lydiasellerofpurple; he must know that what he spoke of regarding the old paths is insulting and inflammatory, and most of all untrue.
Also, David Mark misunderstands the Calvinist view of election if he thinks we practice election or do not depend on Christ. The Calvinist does not understand Peter that way regarding “making your calling and election sure.” Why don’t you ask a seasoned Calvinist how he views that Peter passage. It might be enlightening. As well, don’t just say what the passage does not mean, tell me what it does mean.
Most of all, we should be slow to speak and quick to hear. Let’s allow each person to define what he believes, rather than telling the other what he believes, then, and only then, should we speak in critique of their stated position. That is harder and requires research and listening to the finest representatives and interacting with the best they have to say, but love, truth and reason depend on it.
With brotherly love,
Gary Marble
LikeLike