Thursday, April 20, 2006

Al Mohler and R.C. Sproul

Yesterday, in an email to his readers, Brother Bob Ross commented on Dr. Al Mohler's opinion of R. C. Sproul. I am reprinting his email for The Calvinist Flyswatter readers.



Subject: MOHLER PRAISES SPROUL [04/19--2006]

Two readers on my email list "ruffled my Baptist feathers" recently when they sent me some information about the Presbyterian Pedo-regenerationist R. C. SPROUL.

Don't misunderstand -- it is not the fault of these two readers. It was simply a case like when one of your kind, good neighbors phones you up and says, "I think I saw termites swarming outside your house!"

One of these friends on my list gave me a reference to the "Reformation Study Bible" on page 1664. In the short "theological" article on that page, Editor R. C. Sproul -- who is a popular Pedo-regenerationist among some alleged "Baptists" -- writes that "INFANTS" are "born again," and "received new life in childhood."

Of course, this was not "new light" by any means. I have known for years about the heresy of "infant regeneration," for I have studied the subject thoroughly in the Pedo-regenerationist writings -- such as those by the Princeton Presbyterians including Dr. Shedd and the Hodges, as well as the Christian Reformed writer, Louis Berkhof. They are all as "nutty as a fruitcake" on the regeneration of infants.

But this reference to the Reformed Study Bible was especially irritating to me since it came at a period of time in which we have been "weeping, wailing, and gnashing our teeth" over the fact that some professing Baptists of our day -- well known for calling themselves "Southern Baptists" and even "Calvinists" -- are having R. C. Sproul to speak at their significant conferences.

It was bad enough that the Founders Ministries, for example, has had the "baby regenerationist" Sproul on their programs. But now, this morning, another Internet link has been called to my attention which has the following statement by the current Southern Baptist Seminary President prominently displayed, praising the same "baby regenerationist, R. C. Sproul:

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.,
President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

"American evangelism is becoming a wasteland of superficiality, pragmatism, and cultural accommodationism. We are experiencing a famine of biblical truth and living in a diet of thin theology mixed with slick marketing. In that context, Ligonier Ministries is a vital corrective to the theological superficiality and biblical illiteracy we now take for granted in so many quarters. R.C. Sproul has set the standard for teaching biblical truth and serious theology to an entire generation of American evangelicals. Ligonier Ministries produces materials that are biblically faithful, rich in theological content, and clear in application. We are living in a time of theological emergency and R.C. Sproul with Ligonier Ministries has come to the rescue! I thank God for this ministry."

In the light of R. C. Sproul's potentially "damnable heresy" on infant regeneration and his false doctrine pertaining to adult regeneration, this endorsement by Dr. R. Albert Mohler is only exceeded, in my recollection, by something on the order of the Southern Seminary's endorsement of the late Nels F. S. Ferre in the 1950s.

Ferre, once at least, suggested that Jesus could have been the "son of a German soldier."

Ferre also was an invited speaker at SBTS when Duke McCall was president and Dale Moody and others taught the Neo-orthodox theology there. At that time, as a young man in the mid-1950s, I did some writing against the Seminary's downgrade movement and the heresies and heretics it was endorsing, and it was published in a magazine called, "The Faith and Southern Baptists," as well as in tract form.

It seems it is "deja vu all over again."

How could R. C. Sproul be "setting the standard for teaching biblical truth" and be so far off base on the theology of regeneration in the case of both infants and adults, is indeed paradoxical if not phantasmagorical. (That last word simply means "imagery," like what one envisages in his mind under the influence of hallucinatory drugs).

To my knowledge, Sproul never preaches the Gospel to lost sinners, probably never engages in personal evangelism to the unsaved, but he does "make disciples" nevertheless, and "win souls" by baptizing the babies. In this for of pedo-regenerationist "evangelism," as long as he has reproductive parents in his church, he is insured of having "regenerated" babies to add to the church as legitimate members. He can therefore dispense with "public invitations" and other forms of soliciting lost sinners to repent of sins and confess Christ as Saviour.

Why would Dr. Mohler endorse Sproul? So far as I know the only "link" is that Sproul teaches that "regeneration precedes faith" (meaning, one is "born again before faith"), which is the primary heresy we have been addressing at The Calvinist Flyswatter website: >><<

Dr. Mohler seems to have a penchant for those who teach this heresy, and at least one of his Faculty members at Southern Seminary, Dr. Tom Schreiner, openly has published that "regeneration precedes faith" ("born again before faith").

This is the same Dr. Mohler who has for some reason seen fit to express reservations and raise questions about the preaching of our good neighbor and television preacher, Joel Osteen. Brother Joel does not baptize babies, but at the end of every sermon he briefly but clearly calls upon unsaved sinners to repent and trust Christ as Lord and Saviour -- but "unfortunately" for Joel, he does not repeat the "shibboleths" and "ordo salutis" palabber which is mandatory by the "Reformed" theological camp so as to pass muster as being called "Gospel." For this reason, you can read dozens of palabbering anti-Joel Internet articles which allege that Joel does not preach the "Gospel."

Although Joel did not attend Southern or any Reformed Seminary, and has only been preaching a few years now, one might "mistakenly" conclude that he perhaps knows far more about what constitutes regeneration than either Dr. Sproul or Dr. Mohler -- if one can form an opinion based upon Sproul's teaching and Dr. Mohler's obvious lack of discernment and concern about that unscriptural teaching. -- Bob L. Ross


At Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:16:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Dear Charles:

Thanks for posting the article on Mohler and Sproul.

In conjunction with this, I am sending my "Hardshell" series of articles to my email list over the next few days.

If readers of the Flyswatter want to receive these at their email addresses, they may send their request to --


In the light of the current trend of some Southern Baptists to tilt in the direction of "Hardshellism" on the subject of the New Birth, I think it would be of interest to my readers to be acquainted with the background of the Hardshell heresy which split the Baptists in the 1830s and led to an anti-evangelism, anti-missionary, anti-soul winning, and anti-outreach of any type to the "unregenerate."

C. H. Spurgeon had to counteract similar theological heresy of this sort in his day, for hyperism and ultra Calvinism were in England in the period of time he pastored in London. He referred to some who "have fallen into one-sided views of gospel doctrines" (MTP, #1170, page 249), and it is to be feared that such is the case with some today in the Southern Baptist Convention.

We are being told today by some -- even by faculty members in the highest halls of theological studies -- that the neo-Presbyterian doctrine of "regeneraion precedes faith," or "born again before faith" is in fact a "return" to the faith of our fathers. But we view it differently. Rather, we contend it is the same theological ditch into which some Baptists leaped back in the 19th century and resulted in the formation of the "Primitive Baptist Church," or as they are commonly called, "Hardshell Baptists."

I hope my articles on the History and Heresies of Hardshellism may serve to show both the unscriptural nature of this theory on the New Birth, as well as show to what tragic ends the doctrine leads. -- Bob L. Ross

At Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:52:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob, I believe the series will do much good. I can't wait!


At Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:23:00 PM, Blogger Jeremy Todd said...

I find it very sad that you and your fellow "flyswatters" have such a small view of such a great and mighty God. How we as finite humans want to limit a God who is self-sustaining and needs us for absolutely nothing. We want to conform Him to our human standards when that is not possible. Let us not argue over such things that the inerrant Scriptures make very clear in that it is God who is in control of "all things". All things means exactly that all things.

At Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:44:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I, too, am a Baptist and firmly believe in the baptism of believers only. When I read your post that the Reformation Study Bible contained infant regeneration, I was shocked and appalled. A man in our church has this Bible so I asked if I could see it. You'll never believe what I discovered!

1) There are no theological notes/articles on page 1644 as you stated.

2) On page 1623, I found a theological article concerning baptism. To my surprise, the article did not mention infants at all!

3)There was an article pertaining to Infant Baptism found on page 37. There, the author makes a connection with infant baptism to Old Testament circumcision. A shakey connection in my opinion. The last paragraph reads: "It is sometimes said that infant baptism leads to a false presumption that the rite by itself guarantees the child's salvation...This unfortunate misconception is possible." (emphasis mine)

I totally hate heresy and strongly believe that we should call out false teaching whenever we are confronted by it.

However, you misrepresented what the study Bible stated. Was this an error on your part? Did you just take your "friend's" word for it? If you make the charge that someone teaches infant regeneration or even baptismal regeneration, I would hope that you would "check your sources."

Was this an intentional lie? Even if it was made in jest, or perhaps a way to draw in some Calvinists that you can "swat", it is still a breach of the Ninth Commandment.

Make sure you a swatting at true heresy and not imagined ones.

At Thursday, April 20, 2006 7:29:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Dear Charles:


I understand that Tom Nettles has made some remarks in Class at Southern Seminary regarding my references to Joel Osteen. Let me explain something here that should have been obvious to Nettles and anybody else:

My reference to Joel Osteen arose because he was SINGLED OUT for criticism by Dr. R. Albert Mohler on Mohler's Internet blog. My point was not specifically designed as a "defense" of Joel Osteen, but the purpose was to call attention to the UNEVEN, SELECTIVE approach of Dr. Mohler in making criticisms.

Dr. Mohler does not associate with Joel Osteen. Joel Osteen does not criticize either Dr. Mohler or Southern Seminary. Joel does not represent a theological threat to Dr. Mohler, the Seminary, or Southern Baptists. If one were to ask Joel, he would probably say he is happy if the Seminary and Southern Baptists are promoting biblical truth. Joel does not solicit money from Southern Baptists. His own church pay their bills.

Dr. Mohler DOES associate and lend the name of Southern Seminary to embellish men such as James Dobson and R. C. Sproul.

Dobson is an Arminian, Pelagian, "Entire Sanctification" socio-politico radio speaker who siphons tax-deductible contributions from Southern Baptists and others for his various and sundry non-Gospel politically oriented and social causes. Dr Mohler is on Dobson's Board, and the obvious qualification for this position is the fact that Mohler can engender financial support from Southern Baptists for Dobson. Can you imagine Dobson and Mohler having a lot of fellowship around the "ordo salutis"?

Sproul is a pedo-regenerationist, who believes the best God-ordained means of effectually calling the elect is by baptizing babies, who presumably are "regenerated" sometime in early infancy, either before, at, or after baptism. Dr. Sproul charges fees from Southern Baptists to attend his seminars, and presumably he is paid handsomely to speak to various Southern Baptists, including Southern Seminary. Mohler's association with Sproul naturally helps Sproul to get into Southern Baptist pockets.

Dr. Mohler's criticism of Osteen in contrast to his embellishment of Dobson and Sproul was the reason for my mentioning Joel Osteen.

Does Mohler really demonstrate that his interest is in behalf of the Gospel when levels criticism at Osteen but lend his name and the Seminary's name to the "bottom line" financial support of Dobson's non-Gospel work and Sproul's system of "making disciples" by infant baptism?

Go figure! -- Bob L. Ross

At Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:52:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Jeremy Todd said...

I find it very sad that you and your fellow "flyswatters" have such a small view of such a great and mighty God. How we as finite humans want to limit a God who is self-sustaining and needs us for absolutely nothing. We want to conform Him to our human standards when that is not possible. Let us not argue over such things that the inerrant Scriptures make very clear in that it is God who is in control of "all things". All things means exactly that all things


That is good doctrine, Jeremy, but it seems that you are not so well pleased at how God is controlling things.

This blog, for example, is part of the "all things" under His control, and yet you seem to be "kicking against the pricks."

Why are you disturbed by this blog, if God is in control of "all things"?

If you really believe He is in control of "all things," are you not found to be a "complainer" against how He is controlling things? Are you insinuating that you could do a better job of it, and would perhaps make a few changes?

Do you think Paul was wrong when he took Peter to task for Peter's "dissimulation," and said Peter "was to be blamed"? (Galatians 2:11-14).

We likewise find that there are those of our Baptist brethren who are engaged in something on the order of "dissimulation," pandering to false doctrines and its advocates, and they are "to be blamed."

It is part of God's control of "all things" for these brethren to be rebuked for such dissimulation, and though it is not the most popular thing to do, we feel responsible to do so when in God's providential control of all things such occasions are presented to us. -- Bob L. Ross

At Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:26:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...



You called my attention to James, "who seemed to be somewhat," and how he is trying to give a better "face" to his website by posting some selections from Whitefield and Spurgeon.

This is good, and in the right direction. The more of these and the less of James, all for the better.

The James of the Bible had to be "weaned" from his attachment to the elements of the Jewish covenant (Galatians 2) by the Gospel of salvation by faith, as preached by Paul.

Hopefully, the modern James can be likewise weaned from the dregs of the false application of the Jewish covenant as it is appropriated by the pedo-regenerationists -- which is really the basis of the "regeneration precedes faith" or "born again before faith" heresy.

The pedos claim that they are the successors of Israel, and their children are the "seed of Abraham" and are "regenerated," are baptized, and enrolled as members of the current "Israel" early in life.

This means -- to the pedo-regenerationists -- that their baby offspring receive
"regeneration" as their
"inheritence" by a "direct operation" by the Holy Spirit before and without faith in Christ, and this is also how adults are supposeldly "regenerated" before and without believing in Christ.

If James will keep reading Spurgeon, who knows but what he will be corrected from his error just as the biblical James was corrected by the Gospel of Christ as preached by Paul. -- Bob L. Ross

At Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:00:00 PM, Blogger Covenantal Muggle said...

Well... flyswatters is such an interesting term considering that historically heretics have always used libel like your blog to defame the Church and Her mission, and have attempted to pull the Kingdom of God within the four walls of a building. Three things I might note for you: (1) The term is Paedo- having to do with children. Pedo- has something to do with your feet. (2) there isn't a Calvinist alive or dead including Sproul who believes that paedo-baptism has anything to do with paedo-regeneration. Paedo-baptism has to do with acknowledging God's Covenant promise to be the God of our children, and our childrens' children to a 1000 generations. (3) page 1664 is chps 14-15 of 1 Corinthians. All the notes are talking about Church order. There is no "theological" article at all let alone one that refernces paedo-whatever.
May God be your only Judge while you attack His Bride, the Church whom He bought with a price. The judgment will be severe enough.

At Friday, April 21, 2006 12:06:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Covenantal Muggle said...
Well... (1) The term is Paedo- having to do with children. Pedo- has something to do with your feet.(2) there isn't a Calvinist alive or dead including Sproul who believes that paedo-baptism has anything to do with paedo-regeneration. . . . (3) page 1664 is chps 14-15 of 1 Corinthians.


On #1, "Pedo" -- Please consult your Dictionary to correct yourself. Ever hear of "pedophilia"? Either "paedo" or "pedo" is lexical terminology for infants.

On #2, no one here has affirmed that pedo-regenerationists teach that baptism regenerates. The supposed "regeneration" is alleged to take place "before, at, or after baptism" -- per Dr. Shedd and Dr. Berkhof, for instances.

On #3, The Nelson edition of the Reformation Study Bible, International Standard Book Number 07852-58523, has an article entitled "Regeneration: The New Birth" on page 1664, under John 3:5.

As for any future remarks you may make, I encourage you to try to become informed before you "open your mouth and put your foot into it."
-- Bob L. Ross

At Friday, April 21, 2006 10:51:00 AM, Blogger Jeremy Todd said...

Joel Osteen does not preach the entire Gospel because he appears to not to want to offend anyone. He appears to want to encourage them to follow a loving God, which He is, but has decided to leave out that God also brings judgment and discipline. Dr. Mohler for one is not afraid to teach the entire truth of God's Word.

To answer your question in regard to Paul opposing Peter that account plays no significance on what you claim to be doing. You use it to make yourself feel justified in your efforts.

In regards to how God rules His creation, I know God is perfectly inline with His perfect plan. Yes, every and all situations. That does not mean that every decision you and I make is pleasing to Him, because we make decisions from what flows from our hearts.

At Friday, April 21, 2006 12:02:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

HOW MANY . . . ?

Jeremy Todd said...
Joel Osteen does not preach the entire Gospel because he appears to not to want to offend anyone. He appears to want to encourage them to follow a loving God, which He is, but has decided to leave out that God also brings judgment and discipline. Dr. Mohler for one is not afraid to teach the entire truth of God's Word.


OK, Jeremy, hoorah for you and Mohler.

So you know all about Joel's Osteen heart and motives. To how many people did you and Dr. Mohler preach even as much of the Gospel as Joel preached last Sunday when I heard him on TV?

Did either you or Dr. Mohler even preach the Gospel to any lost sinners this past week?

Are you and Dr. Mohler preaching to sinners, trying to get them to be saved? . . . or are you sitting around discussing the "ordo paludal" and other "niceties" (as Spurgeon would say) of super-duper 5-point pre-faith regeneration Calvinism?

How many of the elect were called under your evangelistic efforts last month, or even under Dr. Mohler's?

At least Joel is making an evangelistic appeal after every sermon for lost sinners to repent, trust Christ, and submit to Christ as Lord, and get into a Bible-beleiving church. He has an entire page in his book doing the same, and it has reached millions.

Instead of seeing how many things you can find wrong in Joel Osteen, why don't you do the right thing and get out there in the world and present the Gospel to those elect sheep who are yet to be called into the fold? You might find that the Gospel really works!

If you are in Louisville, there may be some of the lost sheep, elect before the foundation of the world, down there in the sinful gutters just waiting to have the "means" used in the effectual call presented to them by some SBTS filled -with-the-Spirit ministerial student. Would you be the first one in 2006 to demonstrate that God uses SBTS students to reach the elect with the Gospel? -- Bob L. Ross

At Friday, April 21, 2006 8:13:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob - you can make a form of evanglist appeal but if you first haven't spoken the Truth of the Gospel then your appeal has absolutely no biblical foundation to be true means to true conversion so Joel isn't sharing the Gospel with anyone.

At Friday, April 21, 2006 9:23:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob Ross is a theological mess!
Joel Osteen?????????????????

At Friday, April 21, 2006 10:40:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...



Charles, I suppose you have discerned that some readers of the Flyswatter do not seem to understand Reformed or Pedobaptist theology. So it might be beneficial to post some brief remarks about this matter.

While I recognize the fact that we have many Christian brethren in Pedobaptist communions and there are some of their preachers who hold forth a great deal of the Word of truth -- and we respect them for every bit of the truth they stand for -- nevertheless we cannot help but repudiate their theories in regard to infant regeneration and infant baptism.

Their theory was elaborately by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd of Princeton Seminary in his Dogmatic Theology, and it alleges that the infants born to believers inherit salvation.

Dr. Shedd taught that the believer is in covenant with God, and "The infant of the believer, consequently, obtains the regenerating grace by virtue of his birth and descent from a believer in covenant with God" (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 2, page 576).

This is supposed to be the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant of the Old Testament, allegedly fulfilled in this age in the New Testament church. Baptism is viewed as replacing or continuing circumcision, and the church replaces Israel. Some call it "replacement eschatology."

Dr. Shedd cites the historic Presbyterian Westminster Confession which affirms that "the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized" (WCF, 28:4), for "Baptism is to be administered, to be a sign and seal of regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants" (Larger Catechism, 177).

Pedobaptist preachers, such as R. C. Sproul, Jay Adams, J. I. Packer (Anglican), and Iain Murray, hold to this theory. Supposedly, infants born to a believer receive regeneration in infancy, are baptized, and are regarded as members of the church.

Dr. Shedd says that such infants of believers are "born into the church" (Vol. 2, page 576).

Dr. Shedd says, "The infant of the believer receives the Holy Spirit as a regenerating Spirit by virtue of the covenant between God and his people" (Vol. 2, page 576).

"They are church members by reason of their birth from believing parents" (Vol. 2, page 576).

"Baptism is the infallible sign of regeneration, when the infant dies in infancy," but it is only the "probable sign of regeneration when the infant lives to years of discretion"(Vol. 2, pages 576, 577).

Now, there is the BIG PROBLEM with all of this phantasmagoria about infants and what they supposedly have by virtue of being born to believers.

Why is baptism an "infallible sign" of the regeneration in the case of an infant who dies, but only a "probable sign" when the infant does not die? Both were born to believing parents; wherein lies the difference?

Does this mean the covenant in the case of the living child is conditional upon the subsequent life and works of that baptized infant?

This seems to the case, for Dr. Shedd says:

"So a baptized child, in adult years, may renounce his baptism and church membership, become an infidel, and join the synagogue of Satan; but until he does this, he must be regarded as a member of the church of Christ" (Vol. 2, page 577).

Now, pray tell, where is the sanity of this type of palabber in the light of the Bible doctrine of salvation solely by the grace of God?

How can it be said that the infant born of a believing parent inherits the blessing of regeneration, but then this only means that the baptism (as a "sign and seal" of regeneration) and the regeneration itself are meaningless, empty shells, if the regenerated infant grows up and renounces it all?

Is this not making election, calling, justification, sanctification, perseverance and glorification all ultimately dependent upon the deeds of the infant in his maturity, despite his being "filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb," like the John the Baptist? (see Shedd, Vol. 2, page 505).

What is this but salvation by works? Dr. Shedd seems to say as much:

"The reason why there is not an infallible connection between infant baptism and regeneration . . . is the fact that the covenant is not observed on the human side with absolute perfection. Should the believer keep the promise on his part with entire completeness, God would be bound to fulfill the promise on his part. . . . God is, therefore, not absolutely indebted to the believer, by reason of the believer's action, in respect to the regeneration of the child."

Therefore, according to Shedd, "the regeneration of the baptized child" may be "highly probable . . . yet not infallibly and necessarily certain."

This evidently means that the entire supposed "covenant" is dependent upon how the parent raises the child and what the baptized infant does in his subsequent adult life.

If that is not the odor of the rotten rag of salvation by works, what is it? Is it any marvel that fellows like Pedobaptist John Robbins are engaged in exposing apostasy in the Presbyterian denomination? It may be that some of those "regenerated" infants have grown up and did not behave in accordance with the conditions of the supposed "covenant"? Was this the case with R. C. Sproul Jr.?

By the way, these views on infant regeneration, baptism, and church membership were also the views of Pedobaptist Louis Berkhof, whose theological work is published by the Banner of Truth Trust. In fact, Berkhof seems to have been a "disciple" of Shedd whom he oftens follows in his own Sytematic Theology book which is so popular with the pedo-regenerationists and "born again before faith" advocates.

Southern Baptist and Founders' associate Mark Dever has Berkhof's theology book at the top of his Layman's Reading List. Paradoxically, Dever is known to have a peculiar idea concerning at what age to administer baptism to young people who confess Christ as Saviour, yet he apparently has no qualms about promoting the pedobaptists who get most of their members by baptizing infants who are supposedly "regenerated" at an early age!

Both Shedd and Berkhof teach the "regeneration before faith" doctrine, and it is this aberrant heresy on the new birth which is permeating some of our present-day "Calvinists" among the Southern Baptists.

The influence of Berkhof and R. C. Sproul, who also advocates this view, apparently is extending deeply into Southern Baptist ranks. While the late Berkhof's work is extolled and recommended, Sproul is "wined and dined" by the likes of the Founders and Dr. R. Albert Mohler of the Southern Seminary in Louisville.

Do you understand why we were surprised to see the Southern Baptists of the Founders Ministries feature Pedo-regenerationist Sproul as their featured speaker at their Breakfast during the 2005 Southern Baptist Convention? Was there not a Baptist available?

And now this same Dr. Sproul is to speak at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as has been noted on this website. -- Bob L. Ross

At Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:59:00 AM, Anonymous Chuckette said...

Dear Chuck


Recently, in reading some of old hoozamawatzit's e-mails and posts, I've been blessed by reading some of the Spurgeon quotes. Not only that source, but I've resumed reading a booklet (published by "you know who"?) of "the Prince of Preacher's" sermons containing three sermons on security. Let it be known that I just love Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Could read him from sunup to sundown and then come back for more. You know something, Chuck? I would have loved to have met him. If I could do so now, I would fall at his feet and hug and kiss them. That's not meant to sound idolatrous, but it's a mark of how I regard the man. He just loved and really knew the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a true friend of the Friend of sinners. I would've loved to have sat and talked with him, crying my soul out to him about my problems and difficulties and just soaking up what he had to say. I tell you what, Chuck, I think I would've had some or all of my problems cleared up by doing so! Yep, don't think I would've come away the same as before I went to him. I reckon he would have loved me with the love of Christ and that would have really been something.

The Lord used C H Spurgeon mightily and He's still graciously using him today. Apart from the genius of this great man, which quality God endowed him with, I think the reason for his enduring popularity is because he really knew and loved Christ Jesus and preached Him and the things pertaining to Him. He honoured God and God honoured him! He loved Christ, Chuck! And O glory, it showed!

You know, these poor individuals who would argue the toss all the day long about this or that point of theology --- you know Chuck, they need to follow Spurgeon and fall in love with Christ! Yes Sir, they sure do! We can spend practically the whole of the term of our miserable lives in a spiritual fog, but Spurgeon is one who we may look to as a blessed example to follow. He was preoccupied with Christ and the things of God. His whole life was taken up with eternal verities. And he overcame, being more than a conqueror through Him that loved us. Isn't that what you would like to be like? I know I would. Well then, let's look to one of the best servants of God we can possibly look to and do as he did in getting to know, love and follow our Lord and Master.

I love Charles Haddon Spurgeon because he loved and knew Jesus and you are brought to our lovely Lord because Spurgeon's work exudes the sweet smelling savour of Jesus Christ and the things that are from above. You dine at the table of Christ when you read CHS. What higher calling can there be than to introduce people to the Lord, and that is what Spurgeon excelled in doing. May God bless his dear memory and keep on using him for His glory!

You know something, Chuck? I once had a dear mother who I loved. She died in the latter part of the 90s. Today, I spoke with a young woman who knew my mother. They went to the same church (I went there for a while some years ago.) I hadn't recognized this young lady as, when I knew her, she was but a girl. And you know, to just think, here I was not knowing who this young person was, but she had known my Mum, and here she was grown and working. My mother is gone, but this young person had remembered her, and she seemed to be warm to me when we parted, and I wonder if it was because she knew Mum? (Just briefly, the young woman works at a doctor's surgery and I was there today after having a bad fall, thinking I might have broken a part of my hand.) If you're remembered with affection after you're gone, Chuck, it's a special thing. Charles Haddon Spurgeon has been remembered with love by countless numbers of people after his death. His life has touched millions, I dare say, both while he drew breath and after he went to glory. May God give us to know Him through Christ and thus touch the lives of others while we may and may we too be remembered as those who loved God and men after we too have departed.

Kind regards


At Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:41:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

PARADOX -- or --

Bob to Charles

A "paradox," Charles, is defined by Webster as a "seeming contradiction."

"Phantasmagoria" is an "illusion," "a figment of the imagination," and a "hallucination" such as induced by drugs.

Help me out, Charles!

When I see where some of the Hybrid Calvinists who approve of R. C. Sproul as "orthodox" are questioning my "orthodoxy" because I enjoy listening to the simple and practical preaching of Joel Osteen on important biblical principles relating to the Christian life, and they imply that my doing so is heresy, is this a "paradox" or is it "phantasmagoria"?

These same Hybrid Calvinists approve, endorse, pamper, defend, and pay R. C. Sproul who teaches that faithless, unbelieving infants get "regenerated" as a blessing which they inherit from being born to believers -- and that is A-OK with the Hybrids -- but if you like to listen to Joel Osteen, you are a "heretic."

These same Hybrid Calvinists claim they got "regenerated," "born again," and they did not even have God-given faith in Jesus Christ at the time of their "new birth," and this is regarded as consistent with the precious "ordo salutis," but if you like to listen to Joel you are "heterodox".

Accordig to the Sproul and the Hybrids, neither the babes nor the adults have God-given faith at the time of their being "born again," but if you like to hear Joel, something must be wrong with you.

Tell me, Charles, is that a "paradox," or is it "phantasmagoria"? -- Bob L. Ross

At Saturday, April 22, 2006 11:10:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

CURSES! . . . We are not being
taken seriously, Charles!

Bob to Charles:.

You said in an email --

Brother Bob,

I can't wait for the rest of the Hardshell series. . . .
Gene Bridges and some of his friends are at it again.

I took a look at "Burning Bridges," and it appears we are not "being taken seriously," Charles!

What can we do to attract some attention . . . "seriously" style?

Perhaps a few more comedic pieces at the iMonk's expense?

Maybe you could try something like that fire-engine on Phil Johnson's website? You could use a Dutch windmill, surrounded by Tulips, perhaps?

Or, what about something like that freakish art used on James White's website?

Or, rather than a stall with a Monk at his desk, you could use a picture of Moe, Larry, and Curly with flyswatters in the hands, beating up on one another!

But, please, Charles . . . do something to help us get a little ATTENTION! -- Bob L. Ross

At Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:56:00 PM, Blogger Jeremy Todd said...

Thanks for your concern Bob, but I had the humbling privledge of leading a young girl to Christ this past Wednesday. We have seen numerous young people and adults alike turn their lives over to Christ from the PREACHING of God's holy Word. Exegetical Preaching from the entire Gospel. Yes, it is God who called them, God who regenerated them, and God who saved them and God who works the process of Sanctification.

At Saturday, April 22, 2006 1:03:00 PM, Blogger Jeremy Todd said...

P.S. Bob. I am not in Louisville.

At Saturday, April 22, 2006 5:53:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Jeremy Todd said...

P.S. Bob. I am not in Louisville.

Bob to Jeremy:

Then why don't you go up there and show those preacher boys how to do evangelism, preaching the Gospel to those elected before the foundation of the world to be called by the Gospel to salvation?

They need an EXAMPLE of how God calls the elect, for Nettles and Mohler may be too busy teaching the mandatory "ordo salutis" and entertaining the likes of pedo-regenerationist R. C. Sproul, who does not preach the Gospel to the lost, but makes his disciples by baptizing babies.

You could become a veritable "William Carey" or "George Whitefield" up there, as it appears obvious that at SBTS the students and faculty are counting on "regeneration before faith," and looking to that to get the elect gathered to Christ.

-- Bob L. Ross

At Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:17:00 PM, Anonymous Chuckette said...


What would you say to one who has been influenced by Calvinism and who is concerned that they may not be saved and who, in despair, expresses such as the following:

That they have sins that aren't compatible with being saved ... that someone they know wants to go to heaven on a bed of ease and that Christians were different people. The person expressing the concern that they themselves aren't saved does not know if they themselves are different -- this person says: See 1st John: And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. If ye know that he is righteousnes, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

This person also says that they are weary and worn and feel like giving up.

The person does not believe that you can just make a decision to believe in Christ. They have expressed concern about the mode of gospel presentation by Billy Graham -- thinking that salvation is just where you make a decision and you're a Christian. (Even if this person would acknowledge that Graham said repentance was part of it (if Graham did), I think they might believe that it's just "decisionism" - i.e. that it's just of man, and what about the necessity of the Spirit of God to regenerate a person?) This person has also said that they've tried repenting but it hasn't worked. They say that God must do the work in making a person His own.

Now, I certainly believe that God must do the work to make a person His own, and these days, it seems that just about every individual and their dog are claiming to belong to Christ, but how many of them have been operated on by the Spirit of God to where they have been born again? Now then, obviously, if a person still has their bad temper or they're sinning in other ways, as I read recently somewhere here that CHS has said, but they're professing to belong to Christ, then their profession is false. On the other hand though, "how many" concerns can a person who fears they are not Christ's have, such as that they have sins that aren't compatible with being saved, yet in fact, they're truly saved?

I believe it can be very hard today to distinguish if a true work of God has taken place in a person's life as we don't see, or see pretty rarely, in our Western countries, the Holy Spirit working powerfully as has happened in the past. So, how many have actually been regenerated by the Spirit of God, notwithstanding their professions of faith in Christ? How do you know if you're just "making a decision" to believe in Jesus (Easy Believism), but in fact, regeneration by the Spirit of God hasn't occurred?

What if you simply don't feel yourself to be a Christian -- that you still have sins that aren't compatible with being a Christian? That you don't think that you do obey Christ (1 John) and that you're always wondering if you're saved or not? What if you've tried "looking" to Jesus to save you (as per the lovely testimony of C H Spurgeon) but it seems that there hasn't been any work of the Spirit in power done in your life -- that nothing has happened? That it's like trying to light a fire with damp matches. There might be a spark or two, but it just never quite makes it to a flame.

Where is the power of the Holy Spirit to convict and convert in our churches today? Everyone's saying to "believe in Jesus," but how many have tried, but they don't see themselves as being too different to any other lost sinner?

What if you're just exhorting a person to repent and believe in Jesus but they come back to you that they've tried to but they think it's all in their own efforts, and is not being attended by the power of the Holy Spirit to raise them from spiritual death, and that they have to wait for God to come to them in power and save them, such as obviously was the case when God saved Charles Spurgeon?

What would you gentlemen recommend to such a person --- one who has genuine doubts in today's spiritual climate about whether they are a true child of God?

A parting request: Please don't none of you "Hardshells," "Hypers," "Hybrids," "Hypos," "Hoohahs," "Heehaws," "Hayseeds," "Pedo-baptismal-transubstantiationalist-regenerationalist" types and whatever else has crawled out from under a rock give me any of that rubbish about being born again before you place faith in the Lord Jesus. Away with such piffle! Get saved yourselves! Then maybe you can be of some real help to others.

Kind regards


At Saturday, April 22, 2006 8:09:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Bob to Charles:

Charles, on another thread of the Flyswatter, I have posted an account of Spurgeon's conversion, but I thought it would be good to quote a bit more about it. For the first post, see:

Charles, the difference between Spurgeon and the modern Hybrid Calvinists is very well summed up in Spurgeon's own words, which express his determination after he had such a difficult time finding the Gospel which he needed for salvation. He said:

"I now think I am bound never to preach a sermon without preaching to sinners. I do think that a minister, who can preach a sermon without addressing sinners, does not know how to preach."

Since Spurgeon came from a pedobaptist family background, and had been "baptized" very young, it is very likely that most of those places he visited were pedobaptist where it was taught that "regeneration" had taken place in infancy. Or, if any of them were the hybrid Calvinist types, they were waiting for "regeneration before faith." At any rate, he says he NEVER heard the Gospel preached in all of his searching at these churches!

Do you think he would have heard the Gospel today in the Hybrid Calvinist churches, Charles? What Hybrid Calvinist preacher would have ever addressed Spurgeon directly and urged him to "Look and Live"?

Has Scott Morgan, James White, R. C. Sproul, Al Mohler, Tom Nettles, Tom Ascol, Jim Eliff, or any of the other modern "Calvinists" ever in their preaching made such an appeal to a sinner?

Would Spurgeon still be languishing in his despair if he had heard one of these preachers? Would they all be waiting on "regeneration to precede faith"?

In the account we have of his conversion on our website, Spurgeon says:

"I will tell you how I myself was brought to the knowledge of this truth. It may happen that the telling of it will bring someone else to Christ.

"It pleased God in my childhood to convince me of sin. I lived a miserable creature, finding
no hope, no comfort, thinking that surely God would never save me. At last the worst came to the worst — I was miserable; I could do scarcely anything. My heart was broken in pieces. Six months did I pray; prayed agonizingly with all my heart, and never had an answer.

"I resolved that, in the town where I lived, I would visit every place of worship, in order to find out the way of salvation. I felt I was willing to do anything, and be anything, if God would only forgive me. I set off, determined to go round to all the chapels, and I went to all the places of worship and though I dearly venerate the men that occupy those pulpits now, and did so then,

"I am bound to say that I never heard them once fully preach the gospel. I mean by that — they preached truth, great truths, many good truths that were fitting to many of their congregations — spiritually-minded people; but what I wanted to know was — How can I get my sins forgiven? And they never told me that."

He goes on to tell of entering the little Arminian Primitive Methodist Chapel, a place still standing and a place I had the privilege of visiting in 1996. I sat in the pew where Spurgeon was born again!

"So, sitting down, the service went on, but no minister came; at last, a very thin-looking man came into the pulpit, and opened his Bible, and read these words: 'Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.' Just setting his eyes upon me, as if he knew all my heart, he said, 'Young man, you are in trouble.' Well, I was, sure enough. Says he, 'You will never get out of it unless you look to Christ.'

"And then, lifting up his hands, he cried out, as only a Primitive Methodist could do, 'Look, look, look!' 'It is only look' said he. I saw at once the way of salvation. Oh, how I did leap for joy at that moment! I know not what else he said. I did not take much notice of it — I was so possessed with that one thought. Like as when the brazen serpent was lifted up, they only looked and were healed. I had been waiting to do fifty things, but when I heard this word, 'Look,' what a charming word it seemed to me! Oh! I looked until I could almost have looked by eyes away; and in heaven I will look on still in my joy unutterable."

"I now think I am bound never to preach a sermon without preaching to sinners. I do think that a minister, who can preach a sermon without addressing sinners, does not know how to preach."

Do you think the Hybrid Calvinists really "like Spurgeon"?

If they do, why don't they follow his example? -- Bob L. Ross

At Saturday, April 22, 2006 8:16:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Jeremy Todd said...

Thanks for your concern Bob, but I had the humbling privledge of leading a young girl to Christ this past Wednesday. We have seen numerous young people and adults alike turn their lives over to Christ from the PREACHING of God's holy Word. Exegetical Preaching from the entire Gospel. Yes, it is God who called them, God who regenerated them, and God who saved them and God who works the process of Sanctification.

May God Bless You, Jeremy! This is what is needed MORE than anything else! You stay with it, and set an example for others who may be inspired by your efforts.

Send me your address, and I will send you a free copy of the book of sermons, "The Gospel According to Spurgeon." We have given away thousands of them to young preachers. We have furnished free copies to the graduates of the Master's Seminary this Spring. -- Bob L. Ross

At Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:11:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

WHAT TO DO . . .

Chuckette said...


What would you say to one who has been influenced by Calvinism and who is concerned that they may not be saved and who, in despair, expresses such as the following:

Jesus explained the way of being "born again" in John 3:14-18, which is by believing on the Son of God.

I began my own spiritual life with the Lord with those verses and similar verses in John. I would do the very same again. The truth in those verses has held me to Christ since October 1953.

So if I were that person you describe, I would read those passages and ask the Lord to "help Thou mine unbelief." I would forget Calvinism or any other ism, and I would "sink or swim" on the Word of Jesus Christ, that by believing on Him to save me, I will have eternal life.

I would say, "Lord, I am in despair. I need to be saved. You have said if I believe on You, the Son of God, I will not be condemned and I will have eternal life. I am taking you at YOUR WORD. If I perish, I will go down with the promise of the Son of God down in my heart. There is nothing else I can do but rely on You."

If that person will trust Him, believe His Word, and look to nothing else but the Son of God for salvation, He will not fail to save. His very Name is at stake. His Father's Name is at stake. The blessing of the Holy Spirit on His Word is at stake. Christ has sealed His testimony with His precious blood. No one ever perished clinging by faith to the Son of God. -- Bob L. Ross

At Sunday, April 23, 2006 2:00:00 AM, Anonymous Chuckette said...


Dear Bob and Chuck

First of all, thanks Bob, for your excellent answer. Yes, look to Christ, "sink or swim." God's Name is at stake. That's if you're repentant, for surely, there's no salvation without repentance of sin. I'll share this with the person I spoke of.

I think if a person's struggling about repentance, they have to simply come to Christ and say they can't repent, or that they don't know if their repentance is genuine, and would He give them the grace and enabling to do so---indeed, to give them the gift of repentance. I can't see that God is going to withhold whatever is necessary for someone who comes to Him honestly desiring to be saved and who knows that they have to give up sin. We have to have hope in God, believing that He is good and that He does desire our salvation!

You know what, gentlemen? In looking at the amount of spiritual confusion there is today, something stands out like a big toe that's just been whacked with a hammer, and that is that the glorious Gospel is needed to dispel the darkness!

What's urgently needed today is the Gospel presented in its beauty, simplicity and power. And one of the best ways to bring people the Gospel is to give them C H Spurgeon's sermons.

Will they get the Gospel through R C Sproul -- Sr. or Jr.? Or James White? Or even Al Mohler and his Southern Cemetarians, er, Seminarians? What kind of ditches have people fallen into today for want of hearing a clear presentation of the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in the blood of Christ?

And here's a thought of the utmost significance ... How many are sinking into eternal Hell for want of the means---the Holy Ghost working via the preaching of the Word---to be saved?!

A Suggestion

With the number of flies buzzing 'round the regions of modern religious circles, the dirty prints of some of which are at times visible on the tables of this blogsite, I would like to propose that you devote a special section of the Flyswatter to clear, powerful Gospel preaching via the sermons -- audio and print -- of the great C H Spurgeon.

Spurgeon's sermons have been used by the Holy Ghost and are needed in this day of religious turbidity and spiritual declension.

Chuck, you could annex out a place where people can go and do two things: Click on an audio sermon of Spurgeon's, and, read his sermons. Make it personal. Get involved. Interact with visitors by inviting them to hear the Gospel and asking them questions and offering encouragement.

At there's a ton of Spurgeon sermons. Now, that's great, but the website is impersonal*. Same with your website, Bob, though because of your writings there and more "communal feel" through the united front with Kutilek, et al, against KJVO-ism, it's not as much so. Who's the dude behind You know him? I don't. I've just had a little e-mail correspondence with him, but to me, he's just another "average Joe." (* Though of course if you find a propinquity with some of the broadcasters there, you could hook up to them in a more personal way, if you wish, but the identity behind the main vehicle website is without a presence there.)

Chuck, you've got to stand out. You've got to be different to the crowd.

He that winneth souls is wise, Chuck. Will you please consider making this a vital part of the Calvinist Flyswatter? Inject some of that personality that's probably there with you, but just needs a little coaxing to bring out.

I hope you will give prayerful consideration to this request. The bold proclamation of the Gospel is the only thing that will bring real, lasting light, clarity and liberation to those in bondage in the oft-times muddied regions of the modern religious milieu.

Kind regards


At Sunday, April 23, 2006 8:09:00 AM, Anonymous Chuckette said...

BOB to JEREMY: Send me your address, and I will send you a free copy of the book of sermons, "The Gospel According to Spurgeon." We have given away thousands of them to young preachers. We have furnished free copies to the graduates of the Master's Seminary this Spring.

Hey Bob, if you're being that generous, mind if I send you my address too for a copy?


At Sunday, April 23, 2006 3:11:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Bob to Charles

Charles, the more I think about Dr. R. Albert Mohler's inviting pedo-regenerationist R. C. Sproul to speak at Southern Seminary, the more it looks like a case of "Humpty Dumpty."

Humpty dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty dumpty had a great fall
All the King's horses
And all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again

How will Mohler ever "live down" inviting a pedo-regenerationist who is just about the equivalent of a Campbellite?

I have debated Campbellites in very well-attended public debates -- about fifteen of them since my first one in 1960. Every one of those Campbellites were happy to admit that they baptized sinners who had not believed "to the saving of theirs souls" (1689 Baptist Confession, Chapter 14). In other words, the persons who were baptized did not have saving faith in Jesus Christ before their baptism. The person baptized by the Campbellite makes no profession of having been born again by believing in Christ. In fact, if they made such a claim, the Campbellites would not baptize them.

After their baptism by the Campbellites, however, they are still admitted into church membership, and accounted among those regarded as the "children of God," despite never believing in Christ for salvation and being born again.

R. C. Sproul teaches the same identical doctrine in regard to the baptism of infants. The infants have not "believed to the saving of their souls," and yet after their baptism they, like the person baptized by the Campbellites, are admitted into church membership and numbered among those regarded as "children of God." The infants, like those baptized by the Campbellites, have never believed in Christ for salvation.

The only notable difference between the Campbellites and Sproul in this matter is the fact that the Campbellites do at least baptize by immersion. To my knowledge, Sproul does not baptize by immersion.

Do you suppose, Charles, that Mohler would ever invite a "5 point Calvinistic Campbellite" (if there is such a person) to speak at the Southern Seminary? If he were to find such a Campbellite, would there be any sifgnificant difference between inviting the Campbellite and inviting R. C. Sproul?

There is, however, one other similarity between Sproul and the Campbellites. Sproul imagines that infants are "born again" without believing in Christ to the saving of their souls, and the Campbellites imagine that one who is baptized is "born again" without belieiving in Christ to the saving of the soul. Neither Sproul nor the Campbellites teach that baptism itself actually "regenerates," but nevertheless they both teach that the new birth occurs without believing in Christ for salvation.

How will "Humpty Dumpty" Mohler ever live down this "fall" from a consistent application of what he believes is Confessional Baptist doctrine? -- Bob L. Ross


Post a Comment

<< Home