Friday, March 31, 2006

Mark Dever for SBC President blog is no more


BREAKING NEWS! THE (UNOFFICIAL) MARK DEVER FOR SBC PRESIDENT BLOG HAS VANISHED!

In February, the "born again before faith" Calvinists over at Flounders Ministries (yes, they really do believe what they are doing is a ministry) were all aglow when one of them suggested that they nominate "no baptism for children" Pastor Mark Dever for president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

One Calvinist quickly started a Mark Dever for SBC President blog. However, it has disappeared into thin air. I'm not making this up, you can view some of the article titles here.

In a previous article, I noted Dever's aberrant church polity is wildly different from Southern Baptists. If the truth about Dever gets out, he couldn't get elected dogcatcher. Dever's electability is directly related to keeping his unscriptural practices from the SBC messengers, most of whom probably don't research candidates on the Internet.

Another current rumor is that Dever might get a Vice President nomination. Back in the old days the conservatives used to occasionally allow a "moderate" to take a VP spot to toss them a bone. Maybe the conservatives are now thinking of doing the same thing to the increasingly whiny "born again before faith" Calvinists.

Stay tuned.

Charles

33 Comments:

At Friday, March 31, 2006 10:11:00 PM, Anonymous Selrahc said...

Charles,

The Dever for SBC President Blog took about 20 minutes to make and it was just a playful lark. Made on a dare.

But he would be a refreshing change of pace in presidency. My guess is that he would probably dedicate ZERO time to pushing calvinism, and ZERO time to Elders, but I would guess that his "thing" would be to encourage churches toward developing honest membership rolls.

I think many non-calvinists are equally disgusted with how meaningless membership has become, stemming from sloppy evangelism poor discernment in receiving members.

The dirtly little secret in the SBC that no one wants to talk about is inflated SBC rolls, filled with many people who show little, if any, fruit of conversion. The majority of which cannot be found in worship on any given Sunday.

Jim Eilliff has a tough article on the subject. With some damning statistics.
Here

Someone once said there were more baptists in Texas than Texans.

Remember the joke about how the Baptist church got rid of all the squirrels. They baptized them, now they only show up on Christmas and Easter.

Selrahc

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 8:21:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Selrahc, Hello!

You said, "The dirty little secret in the SBC that no one wants to talk about is inflated SBC rolls"

I didn't know it was a secret. I've read Elliff's article. He uses the most extreme cases (dead people still on the rolls, etc). What he doesn't say is that it's much easier for a tiny church with little or no baptisms to keep up with its members than a larger church. Maybe that is why the Flounders like the article so much.

Certainly, in Mark Dever's case, it would be much easier to keep up with members if you didn't have children being baptized! No wonder Dever frequently quotes from Elliff's article!

Brother Bob Ross has said, "This matter of the 'missing' hundreds and thousands is not really the problem in most cases today. The problem today seems to be that in all too many churches there are not enough hundreds and thousands being added to the churches to even have the large number of 'missing ones' about which to be concerned!"
IN REGARD TO COMPLAINTS ABOUT NUMBERS OF "MISSING"
CHURCH MEMBERS AT CHURCH SERVICES [02/24--2006]
.

Charles

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 8:58:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

MEANINGLESS MEMBERSHIP

selrahc said,
>>
I think many non-calvinists are equally disgusted with how meaningless membership has become, stemming from sloppy evangelism poor discernment in receiving members.
>>

Another point might be made that many pedo-regenerationists perhaps have contributed to the "meaningless membership" numbers by their "sloppy evangelism" of "making disciples" by infant baptism. The parents are taught to assume that their children inherit "regeneration" as "covenant blessing" since they were born "of blood" descent from believing parents.

Why doesn't Jim Eliff make a study of the "Reformed" pedo-regenerationist churches and see if they fare better than the SBC? Especially since Jim seems to have such great spiritual discernment about who is and who is not "regenerated." He might check to see how many "regenerated" babies R. C. Sproul has baptized the past 20 years and find out how many of them are now attending pedo churches. -- Bob Ross

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 9:02:00 AM, Anonymous Selrahc said...

Actually smaller churches are in the same boat, perhaps averaging 100 in attendance and 300 on the roll. It's not about large churches.

So you're saying that it doesn't bother you at all that the majority of people on the rolls in the sbc will not be in church on any given sunday.

I've never heard Dever quote the article, much less to say he does it "frequently".

Your Bob quote:
The problem today seems to be that in all too many churches there are not enough hundreds and thousands being added to the churches to even have the large number of 'missing ones' about which to be concerned!"

I'm not sure I even know what that quote means. Does that mean that we should be adding hundreds of thousands more so that we don't notice the large percentage that will leave the church within the year. please explain that quote.

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 1:25:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

JAMES WHITE FOR SBC PRESIDENT?

Flyswatter headline said,
>>
BREAKING NEWS! THE (UNOFFICIAL) MARK DEVER FOR SBC PRESIDENT BLOG HAS VANISHED!
>>

BOB TO CHARLES:

According to my "inside sources," Charles, it may be in the cards for James White to eventually seek the presidency of the SBC -- not this year, but later on -- once he has built upon enough support from the "born again before faith" sect which is permeating some SBC churches and seminaries.

It is surmised -- it seems -- that if James solidifies the support of the Founders Ministries and that of other "BABF" [Born Again Before Faith] Reformed ministers in the SBC, including Seminary professors such as Schreiner and Nettles, then he might make a run in two or three years.

It is supposed that he would join Tom Ascol's SBC church in Florida and use the Founders as his launching pad. He would also probably be peripherally promoted and endorsed by the non-SBC John MacArthur/Phil Johnson "Reformed" work in California, the Founders-friendly R. C. Sproul camp of pedo-regenerationists, and other BABF-ers who would love to see the SBC become "Reformed" from top to bottom

If James can make a strong showing in the Caner debate, then it would further enhance him with the super-duper 5-Point Practitioners, and probably dilute some of Jerry Falwell's opposition.

With Adrian Rogers gone, one wonders if Paige Patterson at Southwestern would be up to the challenge of derailing White's Whistle-Stop Train to the top of the heap. After all, Paige is quite tired after the long battle in the SBC against the anti-inerrantists, and he may not have the spiritual adrenaline to take on the BABF'ers.

Keep an eye on James, Charles. He is a very ambitious sort, courting every one from the West Coast to the Georgia Hardshells to Peter Masters in London. If he is eventually elected head of the SBC, there will at least be one redeeming element, namely --

It will insure the perpetuity of the Calvinist Flyswatter, as you will have more flies than ever to swat!

The sad thing would be, James and the BABF'ers would have done more for the Southern Baptists towards making them what the Hardshells failed to do in the 1800s -- namely, advocates of the pedo-regeneration theory of "born again before faith."

I can see it now -- Broadman Press publishing tons of "Exegeeting by Dr. James White." -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 1:35:00 PM, Anonymous ssor l bob said...

Good grief. It's like if I said 2 + 2 is 4 you guys would say, "yada yada yada, regenerated babies!"

It sounds to me like there is no room for any critique of SBC membership, without making reference to dever, or paedo regeneration.

Seems like you guys aren't at all concerned with the a majority of members who don't come to church. That is just fine. Not an ounce of sadness. Is that right? Cause when you immediately start talking about Sproul, it appears that you
can't defend it or you simply don't think its a problem.

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 3:03:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

ssor l bob said...
Good grief. It's like if I said 2 + 2 is 4 you guys would say, "yada yada yada, regenerated babies!"

BOB'S COMMENT:

If you are taking a shot at being funny, you are . . . like the "funny farm" stuff.

I like a good laugh or chuckle, and "cheers" to you for your humour. You should stick with the humour . . . that's the obvious redeeming value of your comments. I always appreciate good humour. There's a time to laugh, the Word says.-- Bob

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 3:17:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

CHURCH ATTENDANCE

Selrahc said...
So you're saying that it doesn't bother you at all that the majority of people on the rolls in the sbc will not be in church on any given sunday.

BOB'S COMMENT:

The SBC is not the only group that has members missing on Sunday mornings!

Comparatively, as to ratio, the statistics will show that the SBC is better off attendance-wise than Romanists, Pedobaptists in the U. S. and England, and others. Since the SBC is so much larger, the figure appears worse than others, but this is not the case.

Many of the pedos don't even have evening and midweek services. I was in England awhile back, where pedos reign as the state church, and the attendance is terrible. Is this the result of Billy Graham's meetings (opposed by the "Reformed") or the baptizing of millions of babies on the assumption of their "regeneration" in infancy (approved by the "Reformed")?

I talked with some workers who were bulldozing near the site of Spurgeon's baptism, as they were shoring-up the river to prevent overflowing. I asked them about their church going, and they laughed. One said, "We are Church of England [pedo regenerationists, "regenerated in infancy"], and we attend church three times in our lives -- (1) when we are baptized, (2) when we are married, and (3) when we are buried!"

I mildly rebuked them, talked further with them, told them about Spurgeon's great preaching, and gave them some single copies of his Gospel sermons. They acted as if they would read them.

-- Bob L. Ross

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 3:32:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob,

Speaking of Pedobaptists, I know John Piper is on record as saying he wants to accept into his church membership people who were sprinkled as babies without requiring them to be scriptually baptized. I understand that several "born again before faith" Presbyterians are wanting to join his church.

Do you know what Mark Dever's position is on this? Would Dever accept into membership an adult who was sprinkled as an infant?

Maybe Al Moher can set them both straight on baptism at their upcoming conference. Hopefully R. C. Sproul will not get to them first.

Charles

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 3:51:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob Ross said,

it may be in the cards for James White to eventually seek the presidency of the SBC

He could do his "politicking" from the "Sovereign Grace" cruise ship while wearing his Scottish kilt and passing out his White Light'n!

He would also probably be peripherally promoted and endorsed by the non-SBC John MacArthur/Phil Johnson "Reformed" work in California,

Sure. After all, Steve Camp already endorsed Mark Dever even though Camp is not even a Southern Baptist! They don't mind one bit helping James on this "born again before faith" political campaign. Steve is going on the cruise with James White and Phil Johnson. What a grand ol' time they will have politicking for James!

The Flounders, Steve Camp, Mark Dever, Peter Masters, Phil Johnson, and the Georgia Hardhells -- all are sipping that good ol' White Light'n! Wonder if that boat is big enough for all of them?

James is on such a roll, I'm surpised that Dr. Moher hasn't given James a presidential appointment to SBTS, the same way he did Tom Nettles.

MEMO TO JAMES: Send Dr. Moher a jug of 100% Arizona White Light'n!

Charles

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 4:15:00 PM, Anonymous Selrahc said...

BobRoss said:
Comparatively, as to ratio, the statistics will show that the SBC is better off attendance-wise than Romanists, Pedobaptists in the U. S. and England, and others.

So...we're doing great cause our stats aren't as bad as the other guys. There's no room for improvement, we're the best.

I'm not sure God is content to have a majority of members not in worship on Sunday.

Is it possible for you all to discuss this issue of absentee membership without making reference to Calvinism, paedo-baptists, sproul, piper, dever, mohler, camp, white?

I never brought up calvinism on this topic, I don't know why you all do. And I don't understand how you can't see that there isn't a problem with the rolls in the average SBC church.

You've been given a couple of chances to at least say, "We need to do better." But nothing.

Do you personally believe that most of the people on the rolls of SBC churches are saved?

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 4:18:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

WHITE LIGHTNIN'

Charles said,

>>
James is on such a roll, I'm surpised that Dr. Moher hasn't given James a presidential appointment to SBTS, the same way he did Tom Nettles.

MEMO TO JAMES: Send Dr. Moher a jug of 100% Arizona White Light'n!
>>

BOB'S COMMENT:

"Mighty, mighty pleasin',
James' exe-geetin'. . .
Whshhhoooh . . . White lightnin'"

If Southern would have James speak at the Seminary, it would really embellish James' stock with the BABF'ers, I'm sure.

Perhaps Schreiner and Nettles can pull some strings and get Dr. Mohler to invite James.

I read on the book cover that Nettles thinks James' "Potter's Freedom" (BABF heresy) has "theological and philosophical sophistication" and "profundity."

In this book, several times James indicates that "spiritual birth" is "before faith." He adopts a semi-Pelagianism that God capacitates the elect person with "ability" so the person is "able" to believe.

James does not believe that the Gospel is for the "DEAD" sinner but it is for the person who has ALREADY BEEN "Born Again."

That's the good, ole fashioned Hardshellism they preached two blocks down the street from where I used to live in Jackson, Tennessee. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 4:28:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

CRUISING WITH JAMES

Charles said,
>>
He could do his "politicking" from the "Sovereign Grace" cruise ship while wearing his Scottish kilt and passing out his White Light'n!
>>

Wonder if James would permit a Scottish Confessional Calvinist to go along on his cruise ship? I could get my Scottish kilt, and James and I could dance to the bagpipes!

What are the chances? -- Bob

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 6:36:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

THE NUMBERS GAME

Selrahc said...

>>
Is it possible for you all to discuss this issue of absentee membership without making reference to Calvinism, paedo-baptists, sproul, piper, dever, mohler, camp, white?
. . . .
>>

BOB:
Did you ever notice how many disciples showed up at the Lord's supper, at the crucifixion, and on the day of Pentecost? Where were the large crowds to which Jesus preached, miraculously fed, even healed many of them? Do you think they were all lost inasmuch as they were not in attendance at certain times? Did Jesus stop preaching because some went back and walked no more with Him?

And what about the parable of the sower? Did you notice how many became fruitful and how their fruit-bearing was not the same?

Looks like from the parable that one-out-of-four is a good average, even where the Word of God in its purity is sown, and even they don't all bear equal amounts of fruit. Shall we just go with the 100% fruit-bearers -- those that show up for every service and do everthing we are supposed to do?

Do you expect 100% results? 100% fruit-bearing?

Looks like if you get four professions and one of them turns out fruitful, that is consistent with the parable of the sower.


>>
Do you personally believe that most of the people on the rolls of SBC churches are saved?
>>

BOB:

I have no way of judging that, neither do you nor some "Jum Eliff;" only God knows the hearts.

All I say is, if the Gospel is preached and you have professions, they should be baptized if their profession is consistent with the Gospel.

Do I think all of them will be "true blue" conversions? Probably not, in the light of the parable of the sower.

Should we stop sowing the seed since some do not follow up as we would hope? Since three out four do not bear fruit, are we to stop sowing the Word?

Just think of it -- based on the parable of the sower -- there could be 4000 on the church roll, and if you had 1000 bearing some degree of fruit, "some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty" -- you are within "scriptural" percentages.

Remember, too, Jesus healed ten lepers, and only one returned to give glory to God. What about the other nine? Did they lose their healing? -- Bob Ross

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 6:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob Ross,

You are pitiful! You have nothing more to offer to Christian circles than to run a bookstore.

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 7:10:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

SALVING THE CONSCIENCE?

Charles, do you think it may be the case with Hybrid Calvinists of the "born again before faith" variety that they are harping and carping about "missing members" because many of them are not showing significant signs of life--few if any converts, few baptisms, with primarily only a few proselytes to Hybrid Calvinism to name as "additions" to the church?

Are they trying to salve their consciences for lack of preaching the Gospel to the conversion of the elect?

They frequently are found writing or talking about "revivals" of yesteryear, when in fact, if you studied the past closely you would see that many of those revivals were actually brought to pass in reaction to an over-emphasis on Calvinism. Moody's evangelism,for example, in England was blessed to the conversion of a lot of pedos who supposedly had been "regenerated" as babies. John Kennedy opposed Moody and complained about how many pedos and pedo ministers were being deceived by Moody!

Spurgeon's preaching broke thru the hyper-Calvinism which was reigning among Baptists when he came on the scene at New Park Street in London. The hypers seemed to hate him. Some fo them even questioned his salvation.

Spurgeon said the people in London "are rather HIGHER IN CALVINISM THAN I AM" (Autobiography, Vol 1, page 342). He said, "Hyperism is too hot-spiced for my palate."

He said he had succeeded in bringing one church (at Waterbeach) to his "own views," and "will trust, with Divine assistance, to do the same with another" (New Park Street Chapel). And he did just that.

I could name you a number of churches known to me that have withered away as a result of Hybrid Calvinism and its attributes.

Evan Iain Murray has bemoaned the situation (Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, pages xiii, xiv).

Charles, if we can make a contribution to helping to break this Hybrid spell that is effecting some Southern Baptists and others today, perhaps Baptists may see some revival -- some of the DEAD elect hearing the Gospel and raised from the dead to life --by the power of the Holy Spirit which accompanies that Gospel -- the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 7:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Dever - to bad it isn't still a blog - I would love someone as God Centered and Biblically sound as Dr. Dever as SBC President. It sure would be better than what we have had in a while especially lets "dunk a million Welch".

selrahc - truth doesn't matter to Bob and Charles. Not Biblical, Not Historical, Not Theological etc. etc. They just like to talk in circles and really to themselves.
Men of confusion with no anchor.
SBC is Charles God and well Bob is misunderstanding of Spurgeon is his God but Truth there is none with them. Angry Men or should I say Boys!

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 7:36:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Anonymous said...
Bob Ross,

You are pitiful!


Bob, I usually let the insulters post away. I find them funny, especially the ones directed at me.

I think James' "White Light'n" is having its usual effect. Anonymous must have had a jug or two.

Anonymous, you should read Bob's book on Campbellites. Whether you are a "Born again before faith" Calvinist or not, you would find it profitable. He's much more than a bookstore owner and publisher, although that alone is more than most people.

Charles

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 7:41:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

DRUNK ON WHITE LIGHTNIN'?

Anonymous said...
selrahc - truth doesn't matter to Bob and Charles. Not Biblical, Not Historical, Not Theological etc. etc. They just like to talk in circles and really to themselves.
Men of confusion with no anchor.
SBC is Charles God and well Bob is misunderstanding of Spurgeon is his God but Truth there is none with them. Angry Men or should I say Boys!

BOB'S COMMENT:

It is strange, Charles,how that White Lightnin' can intoxicate!

Just LISTEN to Anon! . . . sounds like a barfly at the James White'S White Lightnin' Saloon in Phoenix!

Reminds me of an old Bill Anderson country tune about drinking --

"If anybody asks me, what makes me Hyridize so fast,
I'll say, White Lightnin' and James' exegeet'n."
-- Bob L. Ross

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 7:48:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob Ross said, Charles, do you think it may be the case with Hybrid Calvinists of the "born again before faith" variety that they are harping and carping about "missing members" because many of them are not showing significant signs of life--few if any converts, few baptisms, with primarily only a few proselytes to Hybrid Calvinism to name as "additions" to the church?

Yes, sir!

those revivals were actually brought to pass in reaction to an over-emphasis on Calvinism.

Don't forget William Carey and Andrew Fuller!

Charles

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 7:57:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Well, Bob, after all it is Saturday night!

What does ol' Anon have better to do than belly up to the bar with a copy of James' The Potter's Freedom and a jug of White Light'n!

Maybe Alan Kurschner could join him and together they could sip White Light'n and light up a stogie!

Charles

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 8:03:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that you have a lot of anonymous people on hear and I think I will become one of those for a moment.

I belong to a SBC church and we have over 2000 member and are lucky to have 500 on a good Sunday.
I think we have a lot of false conversions and it is proven in the fruit which would include not finding Worship and Study of the Word of God important and a must for the True Believer.

I get the feeling that being a Christian and Member of a Church to the writers of this site is all center on Man - Where does God, The Holy Spirit, Jesus the Christ and the Miracle of New Birth come into the picture with you or does it?

What do you do with all the text in scripture that would prove you wrong in your understanding of salvation?

William Carey was a Calvinist to the core!

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 8:06:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob said, sounds like a barfly at the James White's White Lightnin' Saloon in Phoenix!

He rode to the saloon on that horse James said the Apostle Paul was riding!

Man, that's some exegeet'n!

Charles

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 8:13:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Anonymous said...
I think that you have a lot of anonymous people on hear and I think I will become one of those for a moment.

Whatever cranks your tractor.

William Carey was a Calvinist to the core!

A "Spurgeon kind" of Calvinist, true. But not a "born again before faith" kind such as the Flounders, James White, Steve Camp, Tom Nettles, and the rest. Carey was opposed by the hypers/hardshells/BABF crowd.

Am I wrong? You may know more about it than me.

Charles

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 8:54:00 PM, Anonymous Selrahc said...

I was hoping that I misunderstood you, but I guess I didn't. You think that only 1 in 4 members of Christ's church will bear fruit, how sad is that?

Are you seriously arguing that, based on the Parable of the Sower, that about 25% of the Body of Christ will be unfruitful. Wow!

Since the Pastor will anwer to God for how they shepherded the flock, what approach should pastors take, if any, in warning those who show little evidence of conversion?

I'm specifically thinking of those members who never show up for worship, never give, never serve and show love for the brethren, never receive the Lord's supper, never pray with other members of the church?

Should they be, lovingly, cautioning them to examine their faith because of an apparent lack of fruit. This for the purpose of challenging them to examine their faith and perhaps repent and believe and be saved from hell.

Or should they do what most churches do, assume they are just backsliden (sometimes for 25 + years), wait for them to die so that you can announce at the funeral that they prayed the prayer, and really meant it, when they were 9 years old.

As to the percentage of people on the rolls who are saved...BOB said
, "I have no way of judging that, neither do you nor some "Jum Eliff;" only God knows the hearts."

Aren't the church and her leaders supposed to exercise loving discerning judgement for the sake of the church and the Christ's witness through the church to a lost world? Matthew 18, Corinthians.

Bob said: "Should we stop sowing the seed since some do not follow up as we would hope? Since three out four do not bear fruit, are we to stop sowing the Word?"

In this entire conversation I, nor has anyone here, suggested that we stop preaching the gospel. Who are you talking to? No one in here. I've travelled to Romania four times to preach the gospel and I share the gospel here.

Bob said: "Remember, too, Jesus healed ten lepers, and only one returned to give glory to God. What about the other nine? Did they lose their healing?"

What the heck does that have to do with the cost of tea in China? It has ZERO relevance to this discussion.

By the way, I attend a church that is not reformed, has invitations, does not have elders, does not accept people who have not been baptized by immersion. So talk to me not to Piper, Dever, Sproul.

To me and many other people this issue of meaningful membership, a credible corporate witness, and honest rolls, has nothing to do with calvinism


selrahc

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 10:20:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

INEPT COMMENTARY BY FOGGY "TEX"

Charles, I want to give you an example of how inept some people are who post comments on blogsites, knowing not whereof they speak in all too many cases.

A fellow named "Tex" who is obviously in a "fog" posted on Challies.com and while I was out for supper, my son, Mike, got on the website, saw the comment, and he later read it to me.

Had Mike not seen it, I doubt seriously I would have ever seen it, for I hardly visit the blogs unless someone lets me know about something which they think I might want to check-out. (That's how I met you, Charles, as I have told you before.There is just too much useless jabberwacky on these blogs for either my interest, mental capacity, or patience. They have generally bored me stiff every time I have gone to them to see what they are saying. So many have nothing to say, yet they are nevertheless willing to say it.

This fellow "Tex" illustrates how "dumb" many of these people are with respect to dealing with some issue. "Tex" tries to "explain" my complaints against James White, and also my "views" on regeneration. He fell flat on his face in both instances.

But those failures were actually of less significance than the display he made of his ignorance otherwise. Read this piece of ecclesiastical vertigo:

>>
...also not all Paedobaptists believe that their children are REGENERATED BY BAPTISM...in fact I would say MOST do not believe this, but Bob can have a pretty broad brush sometimes..
>>

Now, Charles, "Ned in the First Reader" probably knows that Presbyterians -- the pedobaptists about whom I have been writing -- DO NOT BELIEVE IN BAPTISMAL REGENERATION IN ANY SENSE. If they do, I have not come across their writings or preaching.

And of course, it goes without saying that "Bob L. Ross" has NEVER said they did. I have ONLY SAID what I can put my finger on in Presyterians sources of highest repute.

WHAT they DO BELIEVE IS THAT THEIR CHILDREN ARE THE RECIPIENTS OF REGENERATION SOMETIME IN EARLY INFANCY, and baptism is both the SIGN AND SEAL of that regeneration -- which is supposedly an inheritance those children have in relation to the alleged Covenant, that the offspring of believing parents will be regenerated. Those infants are supposedly regenerated by a "DIRECT OPERATION" by the Holy Spirit WIHOUT MEANS, including the means of baptism.

You see, Charles, when you have to EDUCATE such commentators as "Tex" and ALSO REFUTE them, it just tries one's patience and one loses interest in responding to them. That's one reason why I dropped off the "message boards" a few years ago -- to many dumbos to deal with.

I am only responding now to this goofiness by "Tex" as an ILLUSTRATION of the type of "theologs" which seem to predominate on the blogs. They have read just enough and know enough just to be dangerous -- like the fellow who read the street sign that said "One Way."

He was stopped by a police officer, and the officer started writing the traffic ticket -- whereupon the fellow said, "What did I do wrong."

The oficer replied, "This is a One Way street!"

The violater replied, "But I was only going One Way!"

I don't think I have to tell you "which" way he was going! -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 10:34:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

ANON, THE EXEMPLARY CHURCH MEMBER?

Anonymous said...
I belong to a SBC church and we have over 2000 member and are lucky to have 500 on a good Sunday.
I think we have a lot of false conversions and it is proven in the fruit which would include not finding Worship and Study of the Word of God important and a must for the True Believer.

BOB: Well, what are you doing about it, Anon? Since you seem to know they are lost -- or whatever -- how many of them have you visited to try to win them to Christ, or help them get their lives in order?

You shouldn't be on his blog bad-mouthing them and telling the word how "sorry" your church is. You should be asking the Lord,"What wilt thou have me to do?" -- other than waste time blabbing on this blog. -- Bob Ross

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 11:00:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

Selrahc said...

>>
You think that only 1 in 4 members of Christ's church will bear fruit, how sad is that?
>>

BOB: If you will read what I said, you see that I was referring to the Parable of the Sower. I see nothing there about "church members," but what appears to be "professors." I suppose you could apply it to church members, but that does not seem to be primary. The Word is sown, and one out of four that received it goes on to bear fruit.

>>
Since the Pastor will anwer to God for how they shepherded the flock, what approach should pastors take, if any, in warning those who show little evidence of conversion?
>>

BOB: In my opinion, he or some trusted Christian in the church should go to them one-by-one and discuss their profession, if there is cause for concern about them.

>>
I'm specifically thinking of those members who never show up for worship, never give, never serve and show love for the brethren, never receive the Lord's supper, never pray with other members of the church?>>

BOB: Again, go talk to them. Maybe they need some instructions or counseling in some problem area. Are you a pstor, and do you visit each one that is of this sort?

>>
Or should they do what most churches do, assume they are just backsliden (sometimes for 25 + years), wait for them to die so that you can announce at the funeral that they prayed the prayer, and really meant it, when they were 9 years old.
>>

BOB: You are really "stretching it" here. "Most" churches? I suppose you know all about "most" churches?

>>
As to the percentage of people on the rolls who are saved...BOB said
, "I have no way of judging that, neither do you nor some "Jum Eliff;" only God knows the hearts."

Aren't the church and her leaders supposed to exercise loving discerning judgement for the sake of the church and the Christ's witness through the church to a lost world? Matthew 18, Corinthians.
>>

BOB: A loving Shepherd should watch after the flock, and do what he can for each of the sheep. No member ought to discarded without being PERSONALLY contacted (if possible) and lovingly consulted about what's going on in his life that is a problem as to his relationship at church.

>>
I've travelled to Romania four times to preach the gospel and I share the gospel here.
>>

BOB: That is commendable, but if there is so much wrong in your home church, why not abide by the old addage about seeing about the things "at home"? You seem to have such insights that your usefulness at home could help your church tremendously with its problem members.

>>
By the way, I attend a church that is not reformed, has invitations, does not have elders, does not accept people who have not been baptized by immersion. So talk to me not to Piper, Dever, Sproul.
>>


BOB: Well, you won't get any blue ribbons for that!

>>
To me and many other people this issue of meaningful membership, a credible corporate witness, and honest rolls, has nothing to do with calvinism
>>

BOB: Well, that's fine by me. On the whole, we have been dealing with the difference between historic Calvinism and Hybrid Calvinism on this blog. The "membership" thing somehow got introduced, so I have tried to reply. -- Bob Ross

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 11:09:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L.Ross said...

LOTS OF GRACE ON DISPLAY

Charles, I can see from many of these posts that there must be a lot of "Sovereign Grace" in the posters. If I did not "know better," I might be tempted to think that they were Hybrid Calvinists, "born again before faith" types, and were as angry as a hornet at you and me for disturbing their nest.

BTW, Charles, you will be the very FIRST to know, we have decided to unlink the Founders from our website. Not that we reject everything about them, but their enthusiasm for supporting James White's BABF crusade is just more than we would want anyone to suspect that we approved of. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Saturday, April 01, 2006 11:24:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

MISSING MEMBERS

Charles, there is a tale about a Pastor who had a lax member named "John" to whom he simply could not "get thru to" with his efforts to rebuke sin.

Then one Sunday, there was a big snow, and no one showed up but the Pastor and John.

"I will surely get the message thru to him today," the Pastor eagerly mused. "I have a real scorcher for John, and he will have to surely know I am preaching right at him!"

The Pastor proceded to preach a "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" type of message, and he rebuked every sin John had been committing. He called out, "Repent, or perish!Repent, or perish!"

Afte he finished, John hurriedly approached the Pastor, grabbed his hand, and said, "That sure was a great sermon, Pastor! It's a downright shame that those that needed it were not here to hear it!"

I think John may illustrate some of those who are so "concerned" about the church members who are not present. Instead of working with what they have, they look around to see who and what they can complain about! It may make them feel a little "better" than the other folks who are not so diligent. -- Bob Ross

 
At Sunday, April 02, 2006 9:53:00 AM, Anonymous Selrahc said...

Bob Ross said:
"they look around to see who and what they can complain about! It may make them feel a little "better" than the other folks who are not so diligent."

Looks like you missed the whole point and heart of my discussion with you. In this whole discussion of membership, I have not attacked anyone, I have tried to make my case. I don't think I have given you any reason to think that I had any other motive than for the church to be a beautiful display of God's glory, a light in a dark world reflecting the character of Christ in such a way that would draw people to Him.

It is a very real concern of mine that our evangelistic programs have not been as successful as they ought to be, because with so few on the rolls bearing fruit, growing in Christlikeness, the world doesn't see much of a difference between the church and the world.

What I think is unfortuate about this conversation is that at no time did you concede that the typical SBC church should be doing better.

Selrahc

 
At Sunday, April 02, 2006 4:12:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Hello, Selrahc!

that at no time did you concede that the typical SBC church should be doing better.

The typical SBC church should be doing better.

Charles

 
At Sunday, April 02, 2006 10:25:00 PM, Anonymous Selrach said...

Charles,

Thank you for your concession.

Selrahc

 

Post a Comment

<< Home