Sovereign Grace Ministries

[Scott1]

Sovereign Grace churches describe themselves on their web site as follows:
http://www.sovereigngrace.com/About/AboutUs.aspx

"Sovereign Grace Ministries is a family of churches passionate about the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are devoted to planting and supporting local churches, with a strong doctrinal basis that is evangelical, Reformed, and continuationist."

This thread is intended to be informational. I would like to hear from people from within and without this denomination and prefer to avoid the "continuationist" aspect here only so we focus on answering the question:

Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice, particularly in relation to:


1) The doctrines of Grace
2) Covenant theology
3) Church government

 

[toddpedlar]

Tony Reinke, of The Shepherd's Scrapbook blog, is a prominent member of that group...

 

[danmpem]

I think with some of the recent threads about the difference between being Reformed and being a Calvinist, we can say that Sovereign Grace churches are not Reformed due to the differences in sacriments and/or ordinances (I'm not sure what they call them) and ecclesiology.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/what-does-mean-calvinist-34454/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f121/whats-difference-between-being-reformed-being-calvinist-34219/

Personally, I have benefited greatly from the preaching of many Sovereign Grace pastors (i.e. Mahaney) and resources like The Shepherd's Scrapbook.

 

[Scott1]

Their web site under "Statement of Beliefs" links to a "Together 4 the Gospel" site and its "Affirmations and Denials," which looks to be an 18 Article Statement.

Signatories to this 18 Article Statement include Mr Ligon Duncan, Mr Mark Dever, and Mr Al Mohler.

http://www.t4g.org/pdf/affirmations-denials.pdf

 

[Pilgrim]

Scott, I hope you don't mind my changing the thread title to "Sovereign Grace Ministries." Since about the 1960's there are a number of independent Calvinistic baptistic churches that are part of a "sovereign grace" movement that is distinguished from Reformed Baptists by their relative lack of emphasis on the LBCF and other confessions. They are known mainly (from what I can ascertain) for having several Bible and/or pastors conferences, some of which have been going on for decades. This is what I thought of with the title "sovereign grace" churches since I attended one for a few years.

 

[JonathanHunt]

I'd slightly differ with Josh

1. Definately yes
2. No
3. No

 

[Neogillist]

Here is the answer from the horse's mouth:
Sovereign Grace - FAQ
"3. How are you different from other churches that identify themselves as Reformed?
A helpful way to summarize our Reformed convictions is that we hold to a Reformed soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). We believe that God is sovereign over all things, including the salvation of individual sinners, and that all things, including salvation, have as their ultimate goal the glory of God. Such a perspective keeps the gospel central and grace amazing.

We do believe and cherish the doctrines that historically have been called the TULIP (Total depravity; Unconditional election; Limited atonement or, perhaps more accurately phrased, particular redemption; Irresistible grace or, more accurately phrased, effectual calling; and Perseverance of the saints). However, we never want to focus on more narrow aspects of Reformed theology to the neglect of truths that are central, and that we share with many other Christians. These truths include the gospel, sola fide (justification by faith alone), and sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as the sole infallible source of doctrine and authority).

While we believe that Reformed theology faithfully represents the teaching of Scripture, our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical. We have no other boast but the cross of Christ.

Beyond this agreement on the general tenets of Reformed theology, there are a few aspects of doctrine and practice that are common to many Reformed traditions but to which we do not hold. These include infant baptism, cessationism (the belief that some miraculous spiritual gifts have ceased), and some traditionally Reformed types of church government."

I would probably add myself that their worship is not reformed either (like psalm-singing and hymn-singing), and is probably quite lively. Also, they do not appear to be sabbath-keepers. Overall I would describe them as Calvinistic Pentecostals, or mainstream evangelicals that happen to be calvinists.

 

[Reformingstudent]

While we believe that Reformed theology faithfully represents the teaching of Scripture, our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical. We have no other boast but the cross of Christ.

Where exactly do they think we get our theology from, the Koran?

 

[BlackCalvinist]

While we believe that Reformed theology faithfully represents the teaching of Scripture, our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical. We have no other boast but the cross of Christ.

Amen.

If you'd include the anglican church as 'reformed', their church government structure is somewhat similar.

CJ would be archbishop of canterbury.
The founders of SGM are kinda archbishops as well.
pastors/elders of churches are below them.

Multiple Eldership in their churches, with one head elder.

Not much different than some RB churches I've seen.

On the sacraments, they call them sacraments, but they hold to a memorialist view. Josh Harris recently finally took Covenant Life through a series on this. At times, they sound like they want to become sacramental, but then go back to memorialist language - kinda trying to be 'in the middle'.

 

[Leslie]

While we believe that Reformed theology faithfully represents the teaching of Scripture, our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical. We have no other boast but the cross of Christ.

Where exactly do they think we get our theology from, the Koran?

Perhaps what they are saying is to always go back to the scriptures, that quoting the confessions is not equivalent to quoting the scriptures. While the confessions themselves claim to be subservient to scriptures, in practice they, at times supplant scripture, being considered infallible.

 

[Scott1]

Sacraments of the Church


Water baptism is intended only for the individual who has received the saving benefits of Christ’s atoning work and become his disciple. Therefore, in obedience to Christ’s command and as a testimony to God, the Church, oneself, and the world, a believer should be immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Water baptism is a visual demonstration of a person’s union with Christ in the likeness of his death and resurrection. It signifies that his former way of life has been put to death, and vividly depicts a person’s release from the mastery of sin.

As with water baptism, the Lord’s Supper is to be observed only by those who have become genuine followers of Christ. This ordinance symbolizes the breaking of Christ’s body and the shedding of his blood on our behalf, and is to be observed repeatedly throughout the Christian life as a sign of continued participation in the atoning benefits of Christ’s death. As we partake of the Lord’s Supper with an attitude of faith and self-examination, we remember and proclaim the death of Christ, receive spiritual nourishment for our souls, and signify our unity with other members of Christ’s body.

From their Statement of Faith page, it appears they do not infant baptize. It appears they specify immersion- not sure from this if the method is a point of doctrine.

I have a friend who is going to one of these churches and he told me they had "convinced the Session" that their son's infant baptism (in a PCA Church) is sufficient and that his son would not need to be re-baptized.

There also does not appear to be the idea that Christ is spiritually present during the Lord's Supper. Maybe they have a "higher view," of the Lord's Supper stated somewhere or practiced.

It would be helpful to hear from someone who has been part of the denomination on their doctrine and practice with regard to the Sacraments- and whether those views are written down or is there variation in practice.

 

[Davidius]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/sovereign-grace-ministries-17333/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/sovereign-grace-ministries-13207/

 

[jogri17]

Reformed yes, calvinist yes

There is not one set of rules that define reformed. There are broad principals. A church may be congregationalist (like Edwards or sovereign grace) or plurality of elders (like many reformed baptist churches and presbyterian) and have a historic claim in the title Reformed. I would argue that orthodox Lutherans also would have that honor. One can be a lutheran, Reformed, and Calvinist. Reformed baptists and Presbyterians and Lutherans don't agree on the sacraments/ordinances. Now over the decades certain posistions have been more focused than others leading to the idea that these are the defining deffinitions. But I do not believe the Reformes would limit the title to those who accept one out of 10 or so confessions.

 

[Scott1]

It looks like the earlier threads concentrate on whether they are "4 point Calvinist" (seems to indicate they are moving more and more toward defining themselves "all the way" 5 points) and the "continuationist" issue.

Still not much about their official view of the Sacraments doctrine or practice.

 

[raekwon]

For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.

 

[turmeric]

For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.

Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.

I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless? It's like the "rededication" some SBC and Independent churches push, and the teaching has similar effects on troubled consciences. I realize this is off-topic and only mention it here. If there's a desire for further discussion, we can maybe start another thread and leave this one for its original purpose.

 

[timmopussycat]

While we believe that Reformed theology faithfully represents the teaching of Scripture, our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical. We have no other boast but the cross of Christ.

Where exactly do they think we get our theology from, the Koran?

Perhaps what they are saying is to always go back to the scriptures, that quoting the confessions is not equivalent to quoting the scriptures. While the confessions themselves claim to be subservient to scriptures, in practice they, at times supplant scripture, being considered infallible.

It looks like that to me too.

 

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Leslie
Perhaps what they are saying is to always go back to the scriptures, that quoting the confessions is not equivalent to quoting the scriptures. While the confessions themselves claim to be subservient to scriptures, in practice they, at times supplant scripture, being considered infallible.

How true- "semper reformanda," is a very reformed concept.

It is also very reformed that while there is "Unity in essentials, liberty in nonessentials, and charity in all things," in reformed theology, the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

I have found it helpful that when someone asserts that Reformed theology tends to elevate confessions of faith above Scripture to ask for a specific example. Ask them to give an example where a Confession summarizes a doctrine that is not in Scripture or is not clear from Scripture. It's often a good entree into discussion, that God can use to help both parties.

As this relates to Sovereign Grace ministries, I am wondering what is the source of their doctrinal agreement in their denominational polity.

 

[FenderPriest]

Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice, particularly in relation to:


1) The doctrines of Grace
2) Covenant theology
3) Church government

Hey Scott, hopefully I can help answer some of your questions. In relation to your direct questions, the answers are: 1) Yes. 2) Yes, depending on who you talk to, you may get varying degrees of affirmation. 3) There's a plurality of elders, church discipline, church to church accountability. If you search the SGM website, there's a booklet published on our polity, which you can download, or buy for something around $5 - and judge there on whether we're in line with #3 or not since I'm unsure the extent to which your question would go.

As for SGM itself, I love being in the church we're in (Covenant Fellowship in Glen Mills, PA). The pastoral leadership here is phenomenally Gospel centered, and very intent on bringing our lives into conformity with the Bible (in our jobs, marriages, parenting, friendships, knowledge of God, etc.). The pastors care for us deeply here, and are constantly seeking to encourage faith in us, and help us run the race. There are, of course, our faults where we need growth. But the church itself is the most healthy church I've ever been a part of. All the members are constantly encouraged to grow in their knowledge of God and their application of the Gospel - through the preaching on Sunday, through our community groups, through reading solid books. My wife and I moved to PA from Alabama to be a part of this church, and it has definitely seen God's grace in our lives through it. Through the pastoral leadership and Gospel community, God is continually working in our everyday lives to conform us to the image of Christ - I love the Savior more and more through the work of God in our church and family of churches.

Anyhow, I could go on, but I imagine I'll bag beyond my welcome here. But I figured that since you wanted thoughts from someone in a SGM church that I should share.

~Jacob

 

[Pilgrim]

For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.

From my admittedly cursory perusal of the site, I suspect they would be critical of the emphasis here on the PB and in many Reformed churches of being in submission to the elders. Membership covenants are also a staple of many Baptist churches.

 

[Leslie]

For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.

Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.

I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless? It's like the "rededication" some SBC and Independent churches push, and the teaching has similar effects on troubled consciences. I realize this is off-topic and only mention it here. If there's a desire for further discussion, we can maybe start another thread and leave this one for its original purpose.

What is wrong with the rededication or second experience or whatever? Is it not true that "Reformed" means "Always reforming"? What's the difference if one does it by a few quantum leaps or more often? I truly don't understand the problem.

 

[FenderPriest]

What is wrong with the rededication or second experience or whatever? Is it not true that "Reformed" means "Always reforming"? What's the difference if one does it by a few quantum leaps or more often? I truly don't understand the problem.

Leslie,

The problem with some Pentecostal teaching on "second blessing" is that it makes a two stage Christianity. This is obviously contrary to Paul's teaching in his Epistles. I think what you are speaking to here is those markers of particular awareness of the Spirit's work in our lives that are a part of every Christian's sanctification. There are indeed those moments when we are freshly awakened, freshly renewed, or suddenly aware to a dimension of sin and grace that we weren't before - that's the Spirit's work in our lives. But the problem that the "second blessing" theology presents is that there are two stages of Christians, those who've "merely" been converted, and those who've been empowered. This results in the problems people like Charles Finney and Phoebe Palmer have caused in the church in America.

I hope this helps.
~Jacob

 

[KMK]

For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.

Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.

I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless?

As a point of clarification, charismatics do not necessarily demand a 'second experience/blessing'. Pentacostals do require a 'second blessing', but not all charismatics are Pentacostals.

I do not know for sure, but I assume SGM is charismatic of the '3rd Wave' variety which do not require a 'second blessing'. Please correct me if I am wrong....

 

[raekwon]

I should add that my posting of the above link isn't for the purpose of bashing SGM. I have good friends who are members and pastors in Sovereign Grace churches (FenderPriest being one of them), I've benefited greatly from the preaching and writing of guys like CJ Mahaney and Joshua Harris, and when we moved to Ohio, SGM was one of the first groups I looked at for finding a church home.

I just wanted to show that there seem to be some consistently unhealthy tendencies in some SGM churches.

 

[Pilgrim]

For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.

Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.

I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless?

As a point of clarification, charismatics do not necessarily demand a 'second experience/blessing'. Pentacostals do require a 'second blessing', but not all charismatics are Pentacostals.

I do not know for sure, but I assume SGM is charismatic of the '3rd Wave' variety which do not require a 'second blessing'. Please correct me if I am wrong....

If I'm not mistaken originally their statement of faith did teach a subsequent Baptism of the Holy Spirit but it was revised in order to accommodate those who had joined or who wanted to join and couldn't subscribe to that teaching.

 

[Jared]

For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.

Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.

I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless? It's like the "rededication" some SBC and Independent churches push, and the teaching has similar effects on troubled consciences. I realize this is off-topic and only mention it here. If there's a desire for further discussion, we can maybe start another thread and leave this one for its original purpose.

They have recently changed their official statement regarding pneumatology to welcome those who are Third Wave. People who are Third Wave believe that spiritual gifts are still operating in the church today, but that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is received at salvation and we can be filled and empowered more and more with the Spirit subsequent to salvation. This is my position as well.

http://www.SovereignGraceMinistries.org/Reference/holy_spirit.pdf

 

[Jared]

Sovereign Grace churches describe themselves on their web site as follows:
Sovereign Grace - Our Mission

"Sovereign Grace Ministries is a family of churches passionate about the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are devoted to planting and supporting local churches, with a strong doctrinal basis that is evangelical, Reformed, and continuationist."

This thread is intended to be informational. I would like to hear from people from within and without this denomination and prefer to avoid the "continuationist" aspect here only so we focus on answering the question:

Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice, particularly in relation to:


1) The doctrines of Grace
2) Covenant theology
3) Church government

I have been to a Sovereign Grace church a few times. I went to one close to where I live. It's called Cornerstone Church of Knoxville and it is in Knoxville, TN. I have not been to a "truly reformed" church, so I could not compare it to that. But I do know that I always leave feeling like some of the other sermons that I have heard are almost refuse compared to the preaching there. Also, their worship is very cross-centered. I happen to like it since I was raised Pentecostal. It's a good mix for me because I don't want to leave behind what I believe to be the work of the HOly Spirit in the church, and I also want to have a church that is biblical in their doctrine.

Unfortunately, their church is too far from where I live to attend every Sunday.

 

[Scott1]

The Context of the Modification
Let it first be said that the Sovereign Grace Ministries leadership
team has not moved from its understanding of the work of the
Spirit, an understanding that could be classified as a traditional
charismatic/Pentecostal view.1

1. The addition of “charismatic” to this label implies some distinction from
a traditional Pentecostal view. The primary distinction would be the lack
of insistence that the gift of tongues is the necessary evidence that a person
has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, an insistence that characterizes
the doctrinal statements of many Pentecostal denominations. The general
perspective of the Sovereign Grace leadership team is represented by
the essay by Douglas Oss in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, ed.
Wayne Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 239-283.

Okay- it looks like we have identified one major issue here in answering our question in this thread- Is this a Reformed denomination in doctrine and practice...

The Sovereign Grace Ministries doctrinal standard holds that the Holy Spirit at conversion and the Holy Spirit at the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" are two different experiences. It appears, from the standard, however, this belief is not considered an "essential" for the denomination.

In Reformed theology it would probably be an essential to hold that the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit comes at salvation.

Without commenting on this underlying issue, it seems to me it would be difficult to hold unity over a point such as this, remembering that in Reformed theology, the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement. This would go to the first point in understanding the denomination we're focusing on:

1) Doctrines of grace
2) Covenant theology
3) Church government

 

[KMK]

The Context of the Modification
Let it first be said that the Sovereign Grace Ministries leadership
team has not moved from its understanding of the work of the
Spirit, an understanding that could be classified as a traditional
charismatic/Pentecostal view.1

1. The addition of “charismatic” to this label implies some distinction from
a traditional Pentecostal view. The primary distinction would be the lack
of insistence that the gift of tongues is the necessary evidence that a person
has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, an insistence that characterizes
the doctrinal statements of many Pentecostal denominations. The general
perspective of the Sovereign Grace leadership team is represented by
the essay by Douglas Oss in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, ed.
Wayne Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 239-283.

Okay- it looks like we have identified one major issue here.

The Sovereign Grace Ministries doctrinal standard holds that the Holy Spirit at conversion and the Holy Spirit at the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" are two different experiences. It appears, from the standard, however, this belief is not considered an "essential" for the denomination.

In Reformed theology it would probably be an essential to hold that the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit comes at salvation.

Without commenting on this underlying issue, it seems to me it would be difficult to hold unity over a point such as this, remembering that in Reformed theology, the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement. This would go to the first point in understanding the denomination we're focusing on:

1) Doctrines of grace
2) Covenant theology
3) Church government

From this:

http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/Reference/holy_spirit.pdf

which you quoted, it seems apparent that the leadership team of SGM is definitely Pentacostal. (because Oss certainly is and his contribution to "Are Miraculous Gifts For Today" is for the Pentacostal view) But they do not insist on a second blessing that is evidenced in tongues speaking. They do not insist on this in order to make room for the '3rd Wavers'.

If this is true, then it seems that they are definitely Calvinistic Pentacostals but they are willing to tolerate Calvinistic '3rd Wavers'. This being the case, I don't see how anyone could call them 'Reformed'.

 

[Pilgrim]

For some interesting (and honestly, not-so-glowing) perspectives on SGM, SGM Survivors (AKA SG Uncensored) is a good read.

Whoever is moderating this, feel free to delete if need be.

I looked at the site above, and noticed that hte things being described are typical of Charismatic churches. I grew up in these in the '70's, and remember the "shepherding" movement. These things are typical of churches and movements which have perfectionistic tendencies. In my humble opinion, any church which teaches the need for a "second experience" after conversion is operating from at least a somewhat perfectionistic view, why else would one need this "second work" unless to make one able to be more sinless? It's like the "rededication" some SBC and Independent churches push, and the teaching has similar effects on troubled consciences. I realize this is off-topic and only mention it here. If there's a desire for further discussion, we can maybe start another thread and leave this one for its original purpose.

I only looked at the first page and saw no specifics, only innuendo and little or no argumentation from scripture. Do you have anything specific you saw that you can point me to? Where I'm coming from is that today many people view any kind of attempt at pastoral care at all as intrusive, abusive and even cultic. This even includes rudimentary steps like the pastor or elder contacting a family that has been absent from church for several weeks. In the past few years I've come across some sites alleging abuse at Reformed Baptist churches as well and I'm sure there are probably some about Presbyterians too.