The Results of The Founders Ministry, PDC and Calvinism in Combination

Yep. The more I read, the more obvious it was that this guy is a miserable fella...and he wants company. His complaints were all over the board...and any valid ones he had were rendered inconsequential by all of the silly, vapid, trivial, time-wasting, self-centered rants.

It's all about him. I feel sorry for churches that have too many of these types. It doesn't matter if they are Purpose-Driven, traditional, IFB, whatever...selfish and petty complainers can flat-out kill a ministry, dead.

 

Just fyi, he (and his cronies) succeeded. Notice the url is "gbcsaved"...when they started it was "savegbc"

This all went down about three years ago. The church is dying and is now just tranferring members between them and Bellevue.

 

You make it sound sinister and underhanded. It's not. It's using wisdom, restraint and clarity, along with scripture.

The church which the author pastored was as doctrinal and financial shambles when he arrived. I really don't think you'd want him to continue the same kind of doctrines, preaching and financial practices, would you?

 

Sure it is. It's a clear, organized agenda that's designed not to be transparent in an attempt to take control. If a counter-organization using the same tactic sprung up in a Calvinist church, they would say the same thing. Imagine what they would say if they found a document telling certain people that "We've got to get one of our people on the Elder/Deacon Board so that we can gain control."

In a healthy church, everyone's motives are out in the open, and everyone is treated with respect. There isn't a an organization with marching orders that calls potential opponents unregenerate or ignorant and uneducated.

People are going to disagree about one thing or another. It's up to the leadership to decide to rise above it.

 

The "plot," if it were carried out under deceptive pretenses, is not right.

But neither is the whiny, backbiting, gossipy junk that goes on for 200 pages (!) alluded to by the OP.

 

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
You make it sound sinister and underhanded. It's not.

For those tuning in late, this is not about Germantown Baptist; it's about North Pompano Beach Baptist Church (Florida). Go to the Founders link in post #13 and see for yourself.

Here's what the pastor, Ernie Reisenger, wrote:

Yeah, really underhanded. Teaching doctrine to deacons and their wives. Right before the evening service. In the church building. Horrors!

Reisenger:

This is what you call a real lack of transparency?

Just because you don't like what was on the book table doesn't make it sneaky. In fact, a lot of folks knew exactly what they were reading. And left the church because of it.

You described one principle of reformation this way:

Here's the entire quote from Dr. Reisenger:

Sinister stuff.

Here's your description;

Dr. Reisenger wrote:

I've picked a couple of paragraphs from Dr. Reisenger's writing, and juxtaposed BaptistBob's characterization. Anyone who wants to get the whole story, go read it, decide for yourself.

 

Actaully Tom, regardless of if his intent is truly sinister or not - going into a Church that does not believe the same way you as the pastor, with the intent to change it theological views (unbeknowst to the Church), IS wrong.

The only way that person can obtain that position is to not be truthful and upfront wit the CHurch about what you truely believe. That is sinful and sinister to begin with. Sinful because you willingly are withholding vital information that will knowingly affect them calling you, and sinister in this respect because you are willfully deceiving them and have a hidden sceme in the works if you get in. If you have to privately meet with a 'select' group of people to try to indoctrinate them for the purpose of changing that churches theological beliefs (again which the Church had no knowledge of nor asked this of him) - that pastor istands resolutely in sin. And for a man to knowingly and willingly cause division in the body of Christ for the purpose of instituting his theological beliefs (that were not requested by the Church) shows his complete lack of reguard and respect for the things of God, His church, God Himself, as well as integrity.

Interestingly, it is seemingly a small matter but I believe one of great importance - those deacons who were in leadership that did not agree - why did they leave?? If it was just a matter of disagreeing with his views that would be extreme indeed, but if they at least were somewhat bibilcal these men should have been at least somewhat spiritually mature and therefore leaving the church is an odd move, unless something else was going on as well. (THIS PART IS CONJECTURE - but none-the-less very odd indeed)

NOTE: PLEASE READ - I would state this about any non-cals tring to do the same to a Reformed Church in the same manner. both men should be considered disqualified from the pastorate.

But that is my nickles worth on the matter.

 

For a pastor to introduce biblical rigor to a congregation is certainly the right thing to do.

Introducing doctrinal truths seems evil to you.

Jesus and Paul divided people. Were they at fault?! You need to distinguish things. Bad doctrine is to be condemned. One shouldn't condemn someone for introducing correct, foundational truths to an assembly of believers.

And that's about the worth of your remarks.

 

Not through lieing, deception, and falsehoods.

Again, not through lieing, deception and falsehoods.

Again, not through lieing, deceptions, and falsehoods.

I would suggest to that consequentialism need be left outside the Church door.

Sure it is, but not by lieing, deception and falsehoods to get in so you can.

One isn't. One is condemning someone for their apparent lieing, deception, and falsehoods made in order to get into that position in the first place.

It does appear that your inability to debat without your snide comments and ad-hominems illstrates your lackof grace and maturity.

 

No, not if you read the page where it came from.

Sneaking them in? I think they were on a public book table for people to buy, were they not? That doesn't sound like sneaking them in.

This is a bit more philosophical, and perhaps too deep for the level of conversation here, but the forming of two services is more like the forming of two churches. It's hard to read the Bible and see this multiple choice worship format. I just don't see it there. Many want to say that music is all about personal preference. Whether that's true or not, worship is not just about music. And we are called to worship God scripturally, not preferentially. That means that individuals are called to submit to the collective will. Church isn't a smorgasbord where you pick and choose what you want.

 

My points in this are speaking more to anyone and not specifically nor necessarily about the pastor here. However with respect to the issue of this pastor and the church I would agree with you IF the church knew before hand a persons theological views and agreed for them to be both preached and taught. However this is not the case. And if it is not the case and he was not up front about his beleifs that he knew would not be accepted - what would you call it?

With the rest I pretty much agree with you.

 

I don't know if it is the case or not. It may or may not be. We would have to know more than what we know, particularly more than what disgruntled people say. It would depend on their doctrinal statement, and what the pulpit committee knew.

If his commitment was to teach the Bible clearly, it will inevitably end up with the doctrines of Grace. So if the church called him to teach and preach the Bible, then they should expect him to do that, even if it contradicts their previously held positions.

So I don't know enough about this situation. I have heard bits and pieces, mostly from disgruntled people who don't have anything to do with the church anyway, so without more information, all I can say is that the article is right.

 

Amen, Pastor Larry

 

One of the most interesting part of Dr. Reisenger's writing was a letter he got from one of the most respected men in the church. He was resigning from everything.

Here's what the man wrote in his letter:

Here is the shocker:

By the way, this was 30 years ago. Dr. Reisenger died a few years ago.

So what would you pastors (of whatever persuasion) do? You believe the Bible to be true and inerrant. You are called to preach what you hold as true regarding salvation and other doctrines. Would you hold back on preaching and teaching such truths so you won't make anybody angry? So you won't lose some members? So you won't offend members who don't believe the Bible is God's word?

Will you leave alone church leaders such as the one mentioned above? Would you be content with giving those members "sugar sticks" each week?

I really don't think you'd back away. I've read too many posts by some of you to think you would. But you would devise some way to get the job done.

It's clear that some of you (Allan excepted) object to the method because you object to the message.

 

And what happens if you change your position. Tom Schreiner, NT prof at SBTS and pastor, recently changed his position from amill to premill as he studied Rev 20. (Let that be a lesson to you.) Interestingly, he preached what he determined it said, and said just 30 days ago he taught something different in his NT class. So if a pastor is called under one belief, and then changes, he has a responsibility to do what?

Obviously, in a biblical form of government, the church can vote him out if they want. But he may persuade them.

Second, many churches have a doctrinal statement and don't preach it. So when a new pastor comes and starts preaching what the church says it believes, many are offended. Reminds me of a conversation recently with someone who was a diehard arminian. I asked him about disagreeing with his published church doctrinal statement. He told me his pastor preached arminianism. I quoted his church doctrinal statement to him which was Calvinistic, and he had no idea that it actually said that. There you have a case of a pastor preaching contrary to the church doctrinal statement.

 

"...he is bound in honor to relinquish an office which he can no longer honestly fulfill." ---Charles Spurgeon, Ministers Sailing Under False Colours

 

Once a demonination leaves the scriptural method of worship "thus saith the Lord" for "I think it should be this way", there is no logical end to the drifting. Today's "contemporary" and "traditional" services are the direct result of that.

Another thing on that: to say a church needs to different kinds of services is to say one is wrong and needs fixing/tweaking. If one is wrong, why continue it?

 

Changing from amil to premill doesn't exactly fit that though, does it? If a Presbyterian stops being a presbyterian, then yes, he should resign. But some matters are not like that.